Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe: Multi-scalar Perspectives 9781447352068

Table of contents :
Front cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of figures and tables
Notes on contributors
Introduction: Superdiversity, policy and governance in Europe
One. Managing superdiversity? Examining the intercultural policy turn in Europe
Two. Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity? The governance of migration-related diversity in France, the UK and the Netherlands
Three. Making the most of superdiversity: notes on the potential of a new approach
Four. Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions: perspectives from the South Tyrolean case
Five. Transmigration: the rise of flexible migration strategies as part of superdiversity
Six. Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies: a study on European cities
Seven. Integrating superdiversity in urban governance: the case of inner-city Lisbon
Eight. Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity
Nine. Superdiversity in the post-industrial city: a comparative analysis of backlash narratives in six European neighbourhoods
Index
Back cover

Citation preview

New Perspectives in Policy & Politics Edited by Sarah Ayres, Steve Martin and Felicity Matthews

SUPERDIVERSITY, POLICY AND GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE Multi-scalar Perspectives Edited by Jenny Phillimore, Nando Sigona and Katherine Tonkiss

First published in Great Britain in 2020 by Policy Press, an imprint of Bristol University Press University of Bristol 1-9 Old Park Hill Bristol BS2 8BB UK t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 e: [email protected] Details of international sales and distribution partners are available at policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk © Bristol University Press 2020 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-4473-5205-1 hardcover ISBN 978-1-4473-5207-5 ePub ISBN 978-1-4473-5206-8 epdf The right of Jenny Phillimore, Nando Sigona and Katherine Tonkiss to be identified as editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Bristol University Press. Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted material. If, however, anyone knows of an oversight, please contact the publisher. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editors and contributors and not of the University of Bristol or Bristol University Press. The University of Bristol and Bristol University Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Bristol University Press and Policy Press work to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design by Policy Press Front cover image: kindly supplied by Asif Akbar Bristol University Press and Policy Press use environmentally responsible print partners. Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Contents List of figures and tables

iv

Notes on contributors

v

Introduction: Superdiversity, policy and governance in Europe Jenny Phillimore, Nando Sigona and Katherine Tonkiss

1

one

Managing superdiversity? Examining the intercultural policy turn in Europe Leila Hadj Abdou and Andrew Geddes

two

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity? The governance of migration-related diversity in France, the UK and the Netherlands Ilona van Breugel and Peter Scholten

29

three

Making the most of superdiversity: notes on the potential of a new approach Tina Magazzini

50

four

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions: perspectives from the South Tyrolean case Roberta Medda-Windischer

75

five

Transmigration: the rise of flexible migration strategies as part of superdiversity Dirk Geldof, Mieke Schrooten and Sophie Withaeckx

100

six

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies: a study on European cities Maurizio Ambrosini

122

7

seven Integrating superdiversity in urban governance: the case of inner-city Lisbon Nuno Oliveira and Beatriz Padilla

146

eight

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity Simon Pemberton

168

nine

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city: a comparative analysis of backlash narratives in six European neighbourhoods Ole Jensen

192

Index

215

iii

List of figures and tables Figures 5.1 5.2 5.3

Migration trajectories of Brazilian respondents Migration trajectories of Moroccan respondents Migration trajectories of Ghanaian respondents

107 108 109

Details of sampling and respondents: Liverpool case studies The neighbourhoods Summaries of neighbourhood forums

177 198 208

Tables 8.1 9.1 9.2

iv

Notes on contributors Leila Hadj Abdou is Research Fellow at the Migration Policy Centre,

European University Institute. Her latest publications include Migration and Mobility in the European Union (MacMillan) with Andrew Geddes and Leiza Brumat and The Dynamics of Regional Migration Governance (Edward Elgar), edited with Andrew Geddes, Marcia Vera Espinoza and Leiza Brumat. Maurizio Ambrosini is Professor of Sociology of Migration at the University of Milan, chargé d’enseignement at the university of Nice-Sophia Antipolis, France and gives a course at the Italian campus of Stanford University in Florence. He is also Editor of the journal Mondi Migranti and Director of the Italian Summer School of Sociology of Migrations. Ilona van Breugel is Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Erasmus University

Rotterdam. Her research focuses on the local governance of migration diversity. Previously, she worked on the research projects Upstream (on the mainstreaming of integration governance) and Volpower (on volunteering and integration). She has also worked as Managing Coordinator for the Master’s programme Governance of Migration and Diversity. Andrew Geddes is Professor of Migration Studies at the European University Institute, Florence where he is also Director of the Migration Policy Centre. Dirk Geldof is Professor of Sociology at the Faculty of Design Sciences

at the University of Antwerp. He is Lecturer and Senior Researcher at the Centre of Family Studies at Odisee University College, Brussels and Lecturer in the Social Work Programme at the Karel de Grote University College, Antwerp. Ole Jensen is Associate Lecturer at the Open University. Since moving

to the UK in 2006, his research interests have focused on diversity, intergroup relations and socio-cultural dynamics in urban neighbourhoods. Tina Magazzini is Research Associate at the Global Governance Programme at the Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute. Roberta Medda-Windischer is Research Group Leader at the Institute

for Minority Rights.

v

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Nuno Oliveira is Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for

Research and Studies in Sociology at the Lisbon University Institute and Invited Assistant Professor at the School of Sociology and Public Policy at the same institution. Beatriz Padilla is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at the

University of South Florida and Interim Director of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. She is also an affiliated researcher at the Lisbon University Institute. Simon Pemberton is Professor of Human Geography at Keele University. Jenny Phillimore is Professor of Migration and Superdiversity and

Founder Director of the Institute for Research into Superdiversity. Peter Scholten is Professor at the Erasmus University Rotterdam,

Director of the IMISCOE Research Network on International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe, Editor-in-Chief of Comparative Migration Studies and Director of the LDE Research Centre on the Governance of Migration and Diversity, the Netherlands. Nando Sigona is Professor of International Migration and Forced

Displacement at the University of Birmingham, where he is also Director of the Institute for Research into Superdiversity. Mieke Schrooten is Lecturer and Researcher in Social Work at the Odisee University of Applied Sciences, Brussels. She is Assistant Professor affiliated with the Master’s of Social Work and the Centre for Research on Environmental and Social Change at the University of Antwerp. Katherine Tonkiss is Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Policy at the

Centre for Critical Inquiry into Society and Culture at Aston University. Sophie Withaeckx is Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Maastricht

University. Previously, she has held positions as Coordinator and PostDoctoral Researcher at RHEA Centre of Expertise on Gender, Diversity and Intersectionality at the Free University of Brussels and as Researcher and Lecturer at Odisee University College, where she was involved in a research project on transmigration and social work, and taught courses in ethics, sociology and project work.

vi

INTRODUCTION

Superdiversity, policy and governance in Europe Jenny Phillimore, Nando Sigona and Katherine Tonkiss

Definition and dimensions of superdiversity Patterns of migration to high income countries until the 1990s mainly consisted of many migrants coming from a few countries to a small number of places. Around the turn of the 1990s, however, a new pattern of migration and associated diversification was observed. In his seminal 2007 chapter, Vertovec highlighted this demographic shift and introduced the term ‘superdiversity’ to describe the effects of new migration patterns and their interaction with existing populations. Vertovec’s invocation of the term ‘superdiversity’ appears initially in relation to London, describing the ethnic and country of origin diversity found in the city as ‘remarkable’. However, since its inception, the concept was meant to move beyond an observation of ethnic and national diversity, to capture the multidimensional aspect of the processes of diversification driven by new migration, including variables such as gender and age, faith, patterns of distribution, language, labour market experiences and different immigration statuses. Meissner and Vertovec (2015, 550) suggest we focus upon diversity ‘on the move’, moving ‘from analysing diversity to analysing diversifications’. A focus on diversifications implies that superdiversity emerges where specific processes are evident, including: •

•

•

•

an ongoing process of multi-layering of newly arriving populations onto pre-existing diverse populations (Grzymala-Kazlowska and Phillimore, 2017); processes associated with super-mobility (Valentine and Sagrove, 2012) which are driven by globalisation and less expectation that individuals will reside their entire lives in one place; an increase in the speed of diversification which may vary by locality and also be viewed as problematic, particularly in areas that have little familiarity with diversity (Kaufman and Harris, 2014; Phillimore, 2015); an increase in the scale of diversity, which frequently attracts the attention of policymakers; 1

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

•

•

an increase in the spread of diversity to areas unfamiliar with migration. Diversity has moved from becoming a largely big city phenomenon to being observable everywhere; increasing demographic complexity as more people arrive from a greater range of origins to more diverse receiving localities. This is evident at neighbourhood, city and national level, and is also accompanied by diversification associated with ever-changing migration channels and statuses.

The politics and governance of superdiversity Superdiversity as a process can as such be conceptualised as shaping not only demography but also social spatial and economic contexts. These contexts offer sites and interactions as potential research opportunities. Indeed, superdiversity as a context has been the site of multiple studies of interactions and narratives (Wessendorf, 2014; Wise and Velayutham, 2009), of translanguaging (Creese and Blackledge, 2010), and of business and enterprise (Ram et al, 2012; Nathan, 2011). It has also been the site of studies concerned with access to welfare (Boccagni, 2015; Phillimore, 2015), including education (Gogolin, 2011), housing (Phillimore, 2013), and health (Green et al, 2014; Phillimore, 2011). More recently research has embedded the concept in the hostile political milieu towards migration (Hall, 2017; Sigona, 2016) and has pointed to the interplay between the discourses, experiences and politics of diversity (Berg and Sigona, 2013) While these studies suggest a burgeoning interest in bringing superdiversity into the study of policy, however, the wider shift in migration studies towards superdiversity has not been mirrored in research concerned with policymaking and governance. That is not to say its value has not been recognised by practitioners in the field. The approach and its value as a tool of analysis is far less visible within academic literatures on policy and governance which have embraced more participatory models of policymaking (Durose et al, 2009; Papadopoulos and Warin, 2007) without a suitable concept or tool on which to draw in order to capture the complexities of contemporary diversity at local, national and international levels. Three gaps in knowledge appear as a result of this lack of attention to superdiversity among policy and governance scholars. First, the focus on multiculturalism, community cohesion and race relations which has tended to dominate the policy studies literature (Fleras, 2009; Flint, 2007; Lewis and Craig, 2014; Modood, 2008) struggles to capture the complexity and intersectionality of different forms of identifications, and the ways in which these identifies themselves intersect with social 2

Introduction

inequality and exclusion (Faist, 2009). Second, while some studies have examined the impact of superdiversity in specific fields of social policy, little is as yet known about the processes and practices of policymaking and governance. In particular, while diversity is often seen as a ‘minority’ issue, processes of superdiversification move complex diversity into the mainstream of policymaking and demand more robust and nuanced approaches to engaging with highly diverse populations (van Breugel et al, 2014). Third, while the ideal scale for studies focusing on superdiversity has often been viewed as the micro public (Valentine and Sadgrove, 2012), less attention has been paid to the institutional spaces where policy is formed and implemented. If we are to understand the policy and governance of superdiversity then we need to study the micro alongside cities and even nations – a scale that rarely catches the attention of the superdiversity researcher.

The book We argue that superdiversity is a useful concept for describing contemporary society and as such offers a platform from which to begin to build studies of policy and governance which can most effectively respond to the realities of contemporary diversity at multiple levels. It is also a valuable lens through which to analyse and critique existing models which may be less effective in this new context. The contributions to this book show the value of developing the study of superdiversity within research into the processes and practices associated with policy and governance. Hadj-Abdou and Geddes focus on the implications of increasing diversity for governance at the European level. Their findings reveal the radical transformations in policy and governance brought about by processes of diversification in the demos which have often been hidden in studies of European governance. Van Breugel and Scholten’s contribution offers a national comparative investigation of the how the Netherlands, the UK and France have used mainstreaming to respond to migration-driven transformations in ways that are influenced by political and economic motives rather than considerations of diversity. Magazzini’s chapter demonstrates the value of superdiversity as the basis of a model for the governance of minorities. Turning her attention to the Roma populations of Europe, she develops a critique of pre-existing models and an analysis of the possibilities presented by a superdiversity-based approach. Medda-Windischer’s chapter shifts the analysis to the sub-national level. By examining the multi-layering of ‘old’ and ‘new’ minorities in South Tyrol, she highlights the shortcomings of traditional ways of thinking about 3

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

the representation of minorities in policymaking processes and highlights the potential of superdiversity to overcome some of these limitations. Geldof et al argue that flexible migration strategies emerge in superdiverse urban areas and consider the interplay between transnational practices by migrants and existing institutional responses in the country of residence. Building on a comparative analysis of multiculturalism in eight European cities, Ambrosini addresses the changing relations between national and local immigrant policies, and the involvement of civil society in the urban governance of immigration. Oliveria and Padilla focus upon the ways in which superdiversity has been used as a marketing tool to highlight the uniqueness of certain places and increase their attractiveness to tourists. In Jensen’s contribution, the focus shifts to the neighbourhood level where the tension between diversity as a social fact and the neighbourhood as a site of local governance is explored. Finally, Pemberton examines the role of urban planning in responding to migration-related superdiversity. Through a focus on Liverpool, the chapter highlights the importance of class-based differences, above ethnic and cultural differences, in shaping the practices of urban planners. Collectively, the authors propose a multi-scalar investigation of how local, regional, national and supranational institutions are coming to terms with the rapid and profound transformation of their populations and contribute to the development of an agenda for future research that considers opportunities and challenges for policy and governance in the age of migration-driven superdiversity. It suggests paths to pursue and questions that need further in-depth investigation. It also opens up a space for the encounters between different bodies of scholarship that to date have not yet, or only fleetingly, met. References Berg, M. and Sigona, N. (2013) Ethnography, diversity and urban space, Identities, vol 20, no 4, pp 347–60. Boccagni, P. (2015) (Super)diversity and the migration–social work nexus: A new lens on the field of access and inclusion?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 608–20. Cadier, L. and Mar-Molinero, C. (2012) Language policies and linguistic super-diversity in contemporary urban societies: The case of the City of Southampton, UK, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol 13, no 3, pp 149–65. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?, The Modern Language Journal, vol 94, no 1, pp 103–15.

4

Introduction

Durose, C., Greasley, S. and Richardson, L. (2009) Changing local governance, changing citizens, Bristol: Policy Press. Faist, T. (2009) Diversity – a new mode of incorporation?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 32, no 1, pp 171–90. Fleras, A. (2009) The politics of multiculturalism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Flint, J. (2007) Faith schools, multiculturalism and community cohesion: Muslim and Roman Catholic state schools in England and Scotland, Policy and Politics, vol 35, no 2, pp 251–68. Gogolin, I. (2011) Transforming education, New York: Springer. Green, G., Davison, C., Bradby, H., Krause, K., Mejías, F.M. and Alex, G. (2014) Pathways to care: How superdiversity shapes the need for navigational assistance, Sociology of Health and Illness, vol 36, pp 1205–19. Grzymala-Kazlowskaa, A. and Phillimore, J. (2017) Introduction: Rethinking integration. New perspectives on adaptation and settlement in the era of super-diversity, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.134170 Hall, S. (2017) Mooring ‘super-diversity’ to a brutal migration milieu, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 40, no 9, pp 1562–73. Kaufman, E. and Harris, G. (2014) Changing places, London: Demos, www.demos.co.uk/files/Changing_places_-_web.pdf Lewis, H. and Craig, G. (2014) ‘Multiculturalism is never talked about’: Community cohesion and local policy contradictions in England, Policy and Politics, vol 42, no 1, pp 21–38. Meissner, F. and Vertovec, S. (2015) Comparing super-diversity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 541–55. Modood, T. (2008) Is multiculturalism dead?, Juncture, vol 15, no 2, pp 84–8. Nathan, M. (2011) The long term impacts of migration in British cities: Diversity, wages, employment and prices, Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC) Discussion Chapters, SERCDP0067, London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. Papadopoulos, Y. and Warin, P. (2007) Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?, European Journal of Political Research, vol 46, no 4, pp 445–72. Phillimore, J. (2011) Approaches to health provision in the age of superdiversity: Accessing the NHS in Britain’s most diverse city, Critical Social Policy, vol 31, no 1, pp 5–9. Phillimore, J. (2013) Housing, home and neighbourhood renewal in the era of superdiversity: Some lessons from the West Midlands, Housing Studies, vol 28, no 5, pp 682–700. 5

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Phillimore, J. (2015) Embedded integration and organisational change in housing providers in the UK, Social Policy and Society, https://doi. org/10.1017/S1474746415000639 Ram, M., Jones, T., Edwards, P., Kiselinchev, A., Muchenje, L. and Woldesenbet, K. (2012) Engaging with super-diversity: New migrant businesses and the research–policy nexus, International Small Business Journal, vol 31, no 4, pp 337–56. Sigona, N. (2016) On superdiversity in a ‘crisis mood’ (interview by Rosemery Bechler), OpenDemocracy, www.opendemocracy. net/Can-europe-make-it/nando-sigona-rosemary-bechler/onsuperdiversity-in-crisis-mood Valentine, G. and Sadgrove J. (2012) Lived difference: The transmission of positive and negative attitudes towards others, Environment and Planning A, vol 44, pp 2049–67. van Breugel, I., Mann, X. and Scholten, P. (2014) Conceptualising mainstreaming in immigrant integration governance, Upstream Report, Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54. Wessendorf, S. (2014) Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Wise, A. and Velayutham, S. (eds) (2009) Everyday multiculturalism, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

6

CHAPTER ONE

Managing superdiversity? Examining the intercultural policy turn in Europe Leila Hadj Abdou and Andrew Geddes

Introduction This chapter critically assesses an ‘intercultural policy turn’ evident in many European cities. It identifies the drivers of this turn and asks whether an intercultural policy approach to immigrant integration is an adequate response to the growing reality of superdiversity in urban spaces. The chapter is in conversation with the rich scholarship on immigrant integration in Europe in the political and social sciences (for example, Martiniello and Rath, 2010; Garcés-Mascareñas and Penninx, 2016). Integration is about ‘imagining what the state can actively do to “nationalize” newcomers and re-constitute the nation-state under conditions of growing cultural diversity’ as Favell (2010, 376–7) has poignantly pointed out. This cultural diversity has become an increasing phenomenon (Faist, 2009) which policymakers in Europe have struggled to come to terms with. The growing diversification of society is particularly evident in cities: places where international migrants mostly settle. An increasing number of cities are not only ethno-culturally diverse, but they have become superdiverse spaces and home to people who vary not only as with regards to their ethnic, national, religious and linguistic backgrounds, but also with relation to age, gender, migration status, as well as varying degrees of transnational ties (Vertovec, 2007), resulting in a complex composition of society. Population groups are not only different from each other but also exhibit significant internal diversity. Given that cities are the ‘cradles’ of diversity, rising diversification has not only posed a challenge to national governance actors but has also drawn the attention of local policy makers. It has often been city governments, who have taken the lead, introducing and implementing immigrant integration policies and institutions, in many cases in the absence of national guidelines or policies. Particularly since the 2000s, we have seen the adoption of an ‘intercultural’ policy approach to immigrant integration by European 7

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

cities. This intercultural policy turn was reinforced by a recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to adopt an ‘intercultural approach to integration and diversity management, to foster this approach at the local and regional level, and to take it into consideration when revising and further developing national migrant integration policies’ (Council of Europe, 2015c). This chapter will explore what this intercultural turn implies in relation to the phenomenon of urban superdiversity. It asks whether the intercultural policy approach has the ability to take into account not only the rising diversity of the city populations but also the diversity within this existing diversity. Moreover, this chapter aims to understand what the intercultural policy turn means for socio-economic inequalities. Inequality is constitutive of superdiverse spaces, but is rarely addressed in (scholarly) debates (Back, 2015). While superdiversity is often viewed as an enriching feature of urban societies, its rise is also indicative of socio-economic inequalities. Superdiversity is more than a mere societal or demographic fact that is often (although not solely) linked to international migration. It is the blending of different ways of life, practices, identities and experiences but it is also the myriad of intersecting social categories, such as ‘illegal/ legal alien’ and third country national. These categories are (re)produced in the interactions between discourse, policy and everyday practices, and determine the access to rights and entitlements which in turn shape the socio-economic opportunities of individuals (compare Carmel, 2013, 242; Boucher, 2014). As such, immigration policies play a key role in the production of superdiversity. How governance actors respond to their diverse population once they are settled through immigrant integration measures can further entrench or alleviate social and economic inequalities. In order to address the question of whether an intercultural policy approach can adequately respond to superdiverse societies, we will discuss the different theoretical strands of interculturalism that immigrant integration policies are based upon, outlining their underlying premises and concepts. To assess the implications of this policy approach in terms of inequality, we will reconstruct the drivers of the intercultural policy turn in Europe and identify the dominant ideas that triggered the spread of this approach. We will look at the Intercultural Cities programme by the European Commission and the Council of Europe as well as at immigrant integration policy documents of three different European capital cities: Barcelona, Dublin and Vienna to reveal the major drivers of the intercultural policy turn. These three selected cities differ significantly from each other regarding their international position, national contexts and immigrant

8

Managing superdiversity?

demography as well as their immigration history, but all follow an intercultural policy approach. By examining the intercultural policy turn this chapter makes two contributions to debates about superdiversity. •

•

One of the major claims of Vertovec’s seminal chapter (2007) on superdiversity is the need to rethink policies dealing with immigrant communities. By examining the potential of the intercultural policy approach to address the phenomenon of superdiversity the chapter first aims to support these reflections. Second, we aim to introduce a political economy perspective to the discussion about immigrant integration policy models and the superdiversity debate. Questions of political economy and shifts in production are largely absent from analytical accounts of immigrant integration and diversity studies (compare Menz, 2013, 112; Hiebert et al, 2014, 7). These processes, however, as we will show, matter greatly if we are to understand the dynamics of stratification and socioeconomic inequality that typically characterise superdiverse societies.

The chapter pursues the following arguments: we argue that the dominant intercultural concept of difference that has influenced the intercultural policy approach in Europe is in principle attuned to address the societal complexity of which superdiverse urban spaces are composed. Interculturalism is predicated on the idea that differences are dynamic and fluid and highlights differences within groups, which is actually very much reflective of the reality of superdiversity. Yet, at the same time, we find that the major driver of the intercultural policy turn is economic interests. Intercultural policy programmes are predominantly focused on the economic utility of migrants and their (super)diversity. Such a strong focus on the utility of migrants, we conclude, presents the danger of reproducing inequalities inherent in superdiverse societies. The chapter has three major sections; in the next section we will briefly explain how we define an intercultural immigrant integration policy approach based on previous scholarship. We will show how this approach differs from other policy approaches, and describe the emergence of the intercultural policy paradigm. In the second section, we will discuss the different theoretical strands of interculturalism on which the intercultural policy model is based. In the final section we will look into the drivers of the intercultural policy approach in Europe.

9

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Interculturalism and immigrant integration policy types Integration is a rather poly-semic term (compare Phillimore 2012, 526). However, as Mahnig (2001, 127) has argued, it is exactly this extensibility of this term that makes it politically successful. It allows for different and adaptable conceptions about the relationship between the societies of settlement and the immigrant population which can range from equal opportunities to assimilation. A major strand of sociological research has emphasised that integration implies the development of a sense of belonging, with some renegotiation of identity by both newcomers and the local population (Phillimore, 2012, 527). In policy terms Alexander (2007) provides the most comprehensive typology of immigrant integration models developed so far by distinguishing between five distinct policy approaches: transient, guest worker, assimilationist, pluralist/multicultural and intercultural. Transient and guest worker policies are typical for early phases of immigration. Once immigrants are seen as a permanent feature of the society, we can see that authorities are either demanding assimilation or are supporting the right of immigrant minorities to remain different, as in pluralist/multicultural policies (Alexander, 2007). An intercultural policy approach in turn puts a special emphasis on the need for interaction between individuals across different ‘ethno-cultural communities’ (Alexander, 2007, 210). An intercultural approach to immigrant integration is alert to the potential dangers that the reification of ethnic identities might hold, and to the constraints that ethnic communities may place on their individual members (Alexander, 2007). Consequently, an intercultural policy approach does also highlight differences within ethnic groups (based on gender, class etc) (Alexander, 2007). Interculturalism ideally aims to encourage and enable individual migrants to choose freely between multiple identities. This policy approach shies away from pure ethnic-specific policy measures, and particularly encourages inter-ethnic activity (Alexander, 2007, 214). While pluralist, multicultural policies would often employ affirmative policies, interculturalism would aim to minimise ethnic-based measures (Alexander, 2007, 212). Interculturalists would, for instance, grant the freedom to women to wear headscarves in schools and public places but would at the same time avoid reaffirming the status of Muslim women as a distinct group, through special legal provisions. This typology corresponds to an ideal type, in practice the boundaries between the different approaches are certainly much more fluid. A defining feature of the intercultural approach as noted before is, however, that instead of targeting specific groups (communities) such as in multiculturalism,

10

Managing superdiversity?

policies adopted in the framework of an intercultural approach aim at the entire population (compare van Breugel et al, 2014, 4). Scholarly debate on immigrant integration has lately tended to be caught up in a discussion over the merits of multiculturalism versus interculturalism and vice versa (Meer and Modood, 2012; Cantle, 2013). The debate basically centres on the idea that an unfit multicultural policy model has to be replaced by an intercultural one, and the opposing idea that interculturalism does not add much to the central tenets of multiculturalism (Levrau and Loobuyck, 2013, 607). We essentially share the diagnosis by Meer and Modood (2012) that much of the critique of multiculturalism is based on a misreading of multiculturalism. While acknowledging the important contributions these debates make, we take a different perspective, taking into account the fact that interculturalism has already become an increasingly relevant policy approach. In order to understand this approach in more depth, it is useful to have a look at the concept’s genealogy. This will eventually help us to understand, if, and if so to what extent, the intercultural policy is actually attuned to the superdiverse composition of today’s societies. Interculturalism emerged across Europe as a policy tool in the 1980s when the Council of Europe began to encourage policy makers to adopt an intercultural approach to immigrant integration (Caponio and Ricucci, 2015, 21). The policy approach was initially based on a rather narrow idea of intercultural dialogue rather than a more comprehensive understanding and set of policy measures (compare Caponio and Ricucci, 2015). The policy approach acquired more prominence in the wake of the Europewide discursive backlash against multiculturalism at the turn of the twentyfirst century. Central to this backlash was the fear of (especially Muslim) sectarianism (Alexander, 2007, 210) that was reinforced in the wake of the 2004 murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, and the 2005 London terrorist bombings (Alexander, 2007). Interculturalism’s increased presence in Europe is thus closely linked to a politicised debate on multiculturalism (Lewis and Craig, 2014). Notwithstanding the fact that most European governments (with the notable exception of the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden) never officially pursued multicultural policies, multiculturalism was somewhat paradoxically blamed for the perceived failure of immigrant integration. Multiculturalism was held responsible for causing separation and the ghettoisation of migrant communities. This diagnosis promoted the idea that more contact between different groups is needed, which became a key component of the intercultural policy paradigm. By playing the ‘multiculturalism-failure card’ it was also possible, though, to ignore questions of inequality, discrimination and oppression (Lewis and Craig, 2014, 23). With multiculturalism’s failure established as 11

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

a ‘widely recited truth’ – an argument repeated so often that it is seen as true (Lentin and Titley, 2011) – national governments were able to use it to legitimise the restriction of further immigration. Integration rhetoric, thus, became part of the repertoire of immigration control. At the level of immigrant integration itself, however, we can actually see in many aspects a continuation of multicultural policies across Europe, despite a ‘rhetorical trope’ of the failure of multiculturalism (Kymlicka, 2016, 159). This rhetorical strategy can be understood as a conscious – although as electoral trends suggest largely unsuccessful – attempt by policy makers to undercut the increasing support for populist, antiimmigrant opposition parties in Europe (compare Kymlicka, 2016, 163). By employing this strategy policy makers aimed to establish a narrative that underlined ‘don’t take your frustration [out] on minorities; your objection is not to diversity, which is a good thing, but to the extreme multiculturalist ideology, that we have now safely put behind us’ (Kymlicka, 2016, 163). While multicultural policies often continued to be implemented in practice, this (discursive) contestation of multiculturalism also enabled the establishment of the intercultural policy approach. In sum, the spread of intercultural policies in Europe was strongly related to the growing perspectives that: a) previous policies have put too little emphasis on one crucial point, namely that interaction between people from different backgrounds matters in order to strengthen social cohesion; and, b), that it is potentially problematic to categorise people first and foremost through an ethnic and cultural lens, assuming that these backgrounds tend to be stable and that they generally predetermine people’s behaviours and beliefs (compare Zapata-Barrero, 2015, 4–5). These are two of the fundamental premises upon which an intercultural policy rests. Interculturalism as a policy approach, thus, was born from and propelled by a critique of multicultural policy approaches and is seen by its proponents as more than a re-labelling of existing terminology associated with multiculturalism. The intercultural concept, upon which intercultural policies are built, emphasises both the necessity of and potential for interpersonal exchange and encounters to create cohesion and a sense of community as opposed to co-existence. It is based on the assumption of commonality rather than difference, and in that sense seeks to foster interaction based on shared commonalities (Zapata-Barrero, 2016, 157). For interculturalism, identity is dynamic and fluid. It highlights differences within groups, and consequently focuses on individual practices and preferences rather than fixed and ascribed group identities. This perspective is based on the idea that people are not determined by a single culture, language or ethnicity, as well as the normative claim that 12

Managing superdiversity?

people should be free to decide their cultural practices, and their religion and so on, regardless of the circumstances into which they were born (Zapata-Barrero, 2016, 158). Intercultural policies consequently aim to encourage and enable people to choose freely between multiple identities and to live their overlapping identities, as proponents of interculturalism stress (Alexander, 2007, 210). The fact that an intercultural policy is (theoretically) based upon a de-essentialist conception of culture and identity makes it attuned to the reality of superdiversity, which is characterised by hybrid identities and backgrounds. However, in focusing on individual choice and individual people, rather than groups, interculturalism also risks overlooking processes of ‘othering’ and ‘racialisation’. Asserting that identity is ‘no longer fixed and ascribed and is increasingly dynamic and chosen’ as proponents of interculturalism such as Cantle (2015, 83) have done, overestimates the agency of individuals and potentially downplays constraining dynamics and institutionalised structures that are inherent to processes of ‘othering’, and which are the basis of persistent inequalities in (superdiverse) societies. This undue focus on agency is in turn a result of the evolution of the intercultural concept, that is, its development in opposition to multiculturalism.

Different conceptual strands of interculturalism While the intercultural policy approach and the concept it is based upon has some fundamental characteristics, which we have outlined above, it would be misleading to conclude that there is only one strand of interculturalism. Instead, it is more accurate to speak of interculturalisms rather than interculturalism. Zapata-Barrero (2016) was the first to provide a systematic and comprehensive description of the concept by distinguishing between three different strands of interculturalism: contractual, cohesive and constructivist. A contractual strand developed in the specific context of Quebec, Canada. It is rooted in the concern of the French-speaking (minority) population to maintain its language and ‘culture’ in a majority English-speaking nation while being characterised by increasing immigration and diversity. In Bouchard’s words (2011, 445), this type of interculturalism seeks to articulate the tensions between continuity of the foundational culture and the diversity brought in by past or recent immigration. While it concerns itself with the interests of the ‘majority culture’ and its desire to perpetuate and maintain itself, it does not disregard the interests of minorities and immigrants (Bouchard, 2011, 438–9). On the contrary, it aims to consolidate both aims – that is, the protection of the majority language and culture and respect for the rights of minorities and immigrants – 13

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

through mutual adjustments and accommodation. Bouchard (2011) views majority cultures as foundational. He acknowledges, however, that they are not static or homogenous, but are diverse in themselves. Bouchard thus chooses to speak of two kinds of diversity: the diversity within groups and the diversity cleavage between minorities and majorities (Bouchard, 2011, 446). Despite this acknowledgment of the fluidity and diversity of identity, this strand of interculturalism remains deeply entrenched in a minority/ majority dualism that seems to accentuate differences rather than dissolving them. Ultimately, the contractual perspective appears to promote ‘some sort of reconciliation between a national minority, and a diverse minority’ (Zapata-Barrero, 2016, 164). Interaction is conceptualised in ‘vertical terms between a founding majority culture and a diverse culture of minority newcomers’ (Zapata-Barrero, 2016), while the majority culture remains the guiding norm. Given that it is embedded in such a majority/minority dualism, it is doubtful that this strand of interculturalism can be sensitive to the effects of superdiversity and the challenge it poses to policy makers (and scholars alike), that is, not to think and categorise people in distinct (ethno-cultural) groups. In contrast, a cohesive strand is not guided by the idea of a majority norm and is thus not concerned by its preservation. Its major aim is the creation and fostering of social inclusion and community cohesion and the overcoming of segregation and societal divisions. A major contributor to this strand of interculturalism is the report into the causes of riots in northern English towns in the summer of 2000 (Cantle, 2001), which put the challenge of communities living ‘separate lives’ onto the UK government’s political agenda. For the cohesive strand, interculturalism aims to create relationships between people in order to tackle exclusionary processes of ‘othering’. Its vision is to establish mixed communities that share common places, collaborate with each other, and learn from one another. Interaction is conceptualised in horizontal terms. It is seen as multi-dimensional and complex, without any pre-categorisations of the population (ZapataBarrero, 2015, 10). The cohesive strand thus moves away from the contractual approach’s dichotomous understanding of the population as comprising a majority norm and a diverse minority of immigrants (Zapata-Barrero, 2015). Proponents of this strand of interculturalism explicitly refer to the reality of superdiversity, in which a governmental ‘tick box approach’ to identity has become increasingly inadequate (compare Cantle, 2013, 6). In this cohesive incarnation, interculturalism both reflects upon the transformation of society in an age of superdiversity and sees itself as a 14

Managing superdiversity?

programme supporting that change, ‘in which majority and minority cultures think of themselves as dynamic and outward looking, sharing a common objective of growing together and overcoming institutional and relational barriers in the process’ (Cantle, 2013, 11). Finally, a constructivist strand as Zappata-Barrero (2015) calls it, adopts a different approach to the contractual and the cohesive strands – focused primarily on the challenges associated with diversity – to look instead at the benefits that diversity brings for society and individuals alike. Here diversity is seen as a resource that must be managed positively in order to harvest its potential. Interaction is regarded as an instrument to liberate the positive potential of diversity, with development understood as resulting from the interaction of diverse people (Zapata-Barrero, 2015, 12). According to Zapata-Barrero (Zapata-Barrero, 2015) this version of interculturalism provides a subversive element, since it challenges existing societal conventions, and demands structural change to transform public space and to change institutional routines. As such he claims (ZapataBarrero, 2015), the constructivist strand is not simply a reaction to superdiverse societies, but constitutes an active thinking-through of the positive role superdiversity does and could play in transforming societies. Transformation is not seen as a potential threat for a majority culture, as in the contractual strand, or as a potential source of societal conflict (the cohesive strand), but a desired outcome which helps to spur creation and innovation. The subversiveness proclaimed in theoretical considerations about this strand, however, might not be so subversive after all. The leitmotif of intercultural policies, which are based on this constructivist strand is primarily one of economic utility, as we will demonstrate in the next section. The concept–policy gap

Before turning to the discussion of this economic–utility argument, we should note that although the concept of interculturalism has spread rapidly in the past decade in policy circles, a gap prevails when it comes to concrete policy formulation. One of the major proponents of interculturalism in Europe, Cantle (2013, 15), openly admits that relatively little thought has been given to the implications of the concept in policy and practice. The problem is especially pronounced when it comes to the implementation of interculturalism. In this vein, Caponio and Ricucci (2015) observe a broad range of degrees of commitment to intercultural policies. While some local governments in Europe do take concrete measures and utilise interculturalism as a way in which to foster social inclusion, others adopt the discourse of 15

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

interculturalism while neglecting concrete policy measures (Caponio and Ricucci, 2015, 26). In some cases, therefore, interculturalism is merely used as a label. Others adopt an appreciative rhetoric of (super)diversity and interculturalism but implement only soft and piecemeal measures, such as supporting the celebration of ethnic festivities. As such, they exhibit what Caponio and Ricucci call a ‘folkloric interculturalism’ (Caponio and Ricucci, 2015). While cities with a longer history of immigration tend to exhibit a proactive, substantial type of interculturalism, those with a recent immigrant experience are more likely to adopt a symbolic or folkloric type of interculturalism (compare Caponio and Ricucci, 2015, 31). In addition to underlining the varying levels of commitment to interculturalism of local governments, these developments suggest that in practice many governments continue to ignore the complexity of (super) diversity. Policies such as ‘folkloric interculturalism’ actually reproduce the very idea of fixed and static identities (mostly centred on ethnocultural categories) that scholars of interculturalism and superdiversity alike have contested. Research into the implementation of policies (Schiller, 2017) shows that even in cases where local governments have actually adopted a differentiated understanding of diversity, when it comes to implementation they maintain a rather narrowly defined target group approach, which reifies simplified categories of difference. This indicates that the concept of superdiversity and the related ideas underlying interculturalism as a political programme ‘may well overstretch the cognitive and practical capacities of policymakers and practitioners’, who already struggle to come to terms with simpler concepts and categories of diversity in practical terms (Vertovec and Meissner, 2015, 552).

The drivers of interculturalism in Europe: economic utility and security As already noted, a ‘contractual’ strand was evident in Canada while in Europe intercultural policy approaches have comprised ‘cohesive’ and ‘constructivist’ components. The European intercultural turn is driven by a sense of diversity as a potential source of social conflict (a view embodied in the cohesive strand of interculturalism) and by the constructivist idea that migrants are beneficial to the economy. As we show in the following, interculturalism can be understood as primarily utilitarian, addressing economic interests as well as security concerns. In this sense, interculturalism serves as a solution to the conflict between economic interests and public resistance to migration. To put it differently, interculturalism aims to address a core issue of immigrant societies: the 16

Managing superdiversity?

disjuncture between economic and political interests that Hollifield (1992) has pointedly framed as the ‘liberal paradox’ of open markets and closed political communities. This utilitarian perspective, in turn, has implications for the inequality dimension of superdiversity. The strong presence of ‘cohesive’ and ‘constructivist’ elements becomes clear, when we look at the Intercultural Cities programme. Intercultural Cities is a joint programme by the European Commission and the Council of Europe. The programme was initiated in 2008 and is a key tool for the diffusion of intercultural ideas (Council of Europe, 2008, 2015a). It emerged from three developments: the Council of Europe’s White Chapter on intercultural dialogue adopted in 2008; the 2008 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue; and the policy solutions for urban development produced by the British think-tank Comedia (Council of Europe, 2009, 19–20). The intercultural city is defined according to the programme as follows: The intercultural city has a diverse population including people with different nationalities, origins, languages or religions/beliefs. Most citizens regard diversity as a resource, not as a problem, and accept that all cultures change as they encounter each other in the public space. The city officials publicly advocate respect for diversity and a pluralistic city identity. The city actively combats prejudice and discrimination and ensures equal opportunities for all by adapting its governance structures, institutions and services to the needs of a diverse population, without compromising the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In partnership with business, civil society and public service professionals, the intercultural city develops a range of policies and actions to encourage greater mixing and interaction between diverse groups. The high level of trust and social cohesion help to prevent conflicts and violence, increase policy effectiveness and make the city attractive for people and investors alike (Council of Europe, 2009, emphasis the authors). On the one hand, diversity management, through intercultural policies, is thus viewed as a means to restrict the potential costs that (super)diversity may bring, that is, the possibility of conflict and disintegration (compare Council of Europe, 2009, 29). On the other hand, interculturalism is seen as a tool to unleash the so-called ‘diversity advantage’ which, properly managed, is seen to represent an opportunity for cities. This ‘diversity advantage’ idea enshrined in intercultural policies has significant implications as regards the dimension of socio-economic 17

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

inequality which is constitutive of superdiverse societies, and we will hence now elaborate on this concept in more depth. Interculturalism and the diversity advantage

The diversity advantage idea is strongly related to the argument prevalent in EU policies, that today’s global economy is increasingly knowledgebased, and that innovation is a key factor in competitiveness (Bodirsky, 2012, 2). Competitiveness relies on human capital capable of producing and contributing to innovation. Economies that want to be successful have to form and attract creative minds. As culture (arts, human development and lifestyles) is central to creativity, policy-makers must foster it. This includes support for creative and cultural industries, openness to immigration (‘of the right kind’, that is, of creative, highly skilled, immigrants) and diversity-sensitive integration of immigrants (Bodirsky, 2012). In other words, creating and maintaining a cosmopolitan flair in the city, through successful management of diversity, is seen as a crucial factor that brings competitive advantage, and, in consequence, more jobs. A strong influence on the establishment of the diversity advantage perspective in Europe has been Florida’s (2004) concept of the ‘creative class’, that is, creative human capital that is constitutive of the creative sector. The creative class, according to Florida (2004), is attracted by places that are open to diversity and characterised by cosmopolitan flair, which nourishes their creativity. Also influential in that regard was the book Intercultural City (Wood and Landry, 2008) that emphasises that culture can best flourish, and, in turn, stimulate creativity and innovation in an intercultural environment of openness and exchange. Wood and Landry (2008) therefore advocate replacing multiculturalism, which is seen as a policy that separates groups from each other, with intercultural policy measures that foster cultural mixing. In sum, a constructivist approach to interculturalism in cities is viewed in these accounts primarily as a tool of economic revitalisation and growth. Accordingly, the Intercultural Cities programme is guided by the idea that ‘one of the defining factors that will determine, over coming years, which cities flourish and which decline will be the extent to which they allow their diversity to be their asset, or their handicap’ (Council of Europe, 2009, 22). It is important to note at this point though, that the diversity advantage idea, which builds the basis of the constructivist component of the intercultural policy approach in Europe, entails two different visions as regards the role of culture. On the one hand, culture is seen as the basis for the stimulus of innovation by the creative class, that is, highly-skilled 18

Managing superdiversity?

immigrants and natives who produce commercial products, consumer goods and knowledge. In this role, culture is constructed as an individual property, which becomes most productive in a stimulating environment of inter-cultural exchange. On the other hand, culture has the role of creating and maintaining this stimulating environment. While cities often cannot control migration directly, local governments are expected to work towards creating an attractive, diverse city environment, one to which the creative class wants to migrate, to live and be productive in. Those different concepts of culture, as Bodirsky (2012, 7) emphasises, refer to a particular class constellation in the knowledge economy and in the neoliberal city, where the labour of workers in the low-paid third sector is at the service of the highly-skilled employees in the knowledge and finance economy. This factor is also mirrored by the geography of the superdiverse city, which is often clustered along homogenous socio-economic class positions (Faist, 2009, 179). The existence of superdiversity consequently does not imply that segregation has vanished. On the contrary, we witness the ongoing existence of segregration in many cities across the globe. Continuing segregation is one aspect of the socio-economic inequality dimension of superdiversity. In other words, while the diversity advantage idea is countering segregation along ethno-cultural lines it is at the same time reproducing class inequality, which is a central aspect of superdiverse societies in urban spaces. A ‘diversity advantage’ in European cities

The idea that there can be a significant economic advantage for cities that promote their diversity, has gained foothold in many European cities. London is an often cited example. Successive mayors have adopted more positive and open positions on immigration in contrast to the more control-oriented approach of national government (Gidley, 2011). In 2012 when the Conservative Party suggested an annual limit on economic migration to the UK, London’s Mayor at the time, Boris Johnson, urged the government to let the ‘best and brightest’ come to the UK (Guardian, 4 October 2012). When responding to coalition government proposals to ‘cap’ immigration and in pro-immigration statements that contradict his later role as the chief advocate of the 2016 anti-immigration Brexit campaign, Johnson (2012, 2) stated that: Migrants support productivity and economic growth through innovation. Contact with people from different backgrounds and experiences of alternative work practices contribute to both process and product innovation. Migrants also facilitate trade 19

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

relations with their home countries, through their language skills, market awareness, network and social capital. They provide labour market flexibility and mitigate the demographic challenges of the UK. London is a rather unsurprising example in that regard. It is, though, important to note, that this diffusion of the ‘diversity advantage’ idea goes well beyond ‘global cities’ such as London. We have selected three exemplary cities that significantly differ from each other regarding their international position, their national contexts, their immigrant demography as well as their immigration history, to illustrate the point that the ‘diversity advantage’ idea has been embraced by city governments across Europe and has led to a certain convergence when it comes to immigrant integration policies, that is, the adoption of intercultural policies. In the following we will refer to official integration policy documents in Barcelona, Dublin and Vienna. The intercultural policy approach in these cities is consistent with the constructivist strand of thinking that we identified earlier, but also includes strong elements of the cohesive strand. Dublin, one of Europe’s relatively recent immigrant cities, joined the Intercultural Cities programme in 2012. In 2008 Dublin city council published a policy document on immigrant integration that underlined its commitment to an intercultural policy approach and highlighted that: Internationalisation, and the resulting human diversity, is recognised as significant in promoting the urban quality of life needed to attract and retain workers and firms in the knowledge economy, the creation of a visitor experience that fuels the visitor economy, a potential spur to entrepreneurship and creativity and innovation through the interaction of different cultures, intellectual frameworks, and customers revealing the potential to create wholly new products, experiences, and services out of the interaction between different peoples. (Dublin City Council, 2008, 8) Barcelona, also a member of the Intercultural Cities programme, was one of the first European cities to adopt an intercultural policy plan in 1997 (Zapata-Barrero, 2017, 248). While initially, the policy exhibited more elements of a contractual strand, since 2010 until today, the constructivist strand, in particular the diversity advantage idea has become the central element of the city’s intercultural policy (Zapata-Barrero, 2017). In its 2010 Intercultural Policy Document the city government stated:

20

Managing superdiversity?

in the context of globalization and greater interdependence at all levels the cities that are most dynamic and generate most opportunities will be those that are capable of converting the potentialities of diversity into a factor of social, economic and cultural vitality. Barcelona cannot afford to squander the potential represented by diversity in a context in which the circulation of ideas, creativity and innovation applied in all spheres becomes a true factor of attraction, dynamism and competitiveness. (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2010, 5) In addition to this constructivist policy component, Barcelona is guided by a strong concern for social cohesion. A major element of the integration policy of the Catalan capital was the Intercultural Dialogue Programme (2008–12) promoting debates and engaging a wide range of actors in order to facilitate ‘coexistence’ (convivencia) (Zapata-Barrero, 2017, 253). Another core policy instrument of the city was its ‘Intercultural Mediation Service’, which was meant to provide an institutional mechanism to prevent social conflicts (Zapata-Barrero, 2017, 255). The concern of avoiding conflict and prevent ghettoisation is also essential in the intercultural approach in Dublin. A major focus of the City Council has been in organising fora of cultural exchange (Hadj-Abdou, 2014). The adoption of an intercultural policy approach is not restricted to members of the Europe-wide Intercultural Cities programme. The diversity advantage principle has also guided the more recent integration approaches of cities with a longer history of international immigration, such as Vienna. Vienna is pursuing in many respects an intercultural policy approach (Caponio and Ricucci, 2015, 29) since the beginning of the 2000s. In 2001 the city decided to adopt a new immigrant integration policy under the label of diversity. In line with the cohesive strand of interculturalism, the introduction of the policy was legitimised as being a measure to prevent the segregation of immigrant groups. It avoids viewing immigrants and the autochthonous population as homogeneous groups, but instead stresses the diversification of society and its individual members (MA 17, 2012, 2). While the policy rejects a focus on ethnicities, its central unit is the individual (MA 17, 2012). The official philosophy of the city’s integration policy, moreover, stresses the potential of a diverse society and defines diversity as a crucial factor for global economic competition. It identifies the city’s policy response to its immigrants as an opportunity to brand the city as open and cosmopolitan, and thus increase the city’s appeal as a business location (MA 17, 2012, 1). These three policy examples exhibiting constructivist components of interculturalism in combination with cohesive components are by no 21

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

means exhaustive but they are indicative of the increasing spread of an intercultural policy approach across Europe. Diversity advantage and the superdiverse city

As described above, these developments have been strengthened through the Intercultural Cities programme in the 2000s, but its roots date as far back as the 1980s, and are closely related to shifts in the global economy and modes of governance. Particularly significant is the emergence of ‘entrepreneurialism’ in urban governance. As the power of nation states to control multinational flows of finance and capital declined, investment increasingly took the form of negotiation between international finance capital and local powers trying to maximise the attractiveness of the local site as a lure for capitalist development and increased consumption (Harvey, 1989, 5). This rise of the ‘entrepreneurial city’ brought a defining focus on the political economy of place – that is, the construction of urban facilities (such as industrial centres), and the amelioration of local conditions, in order to upgrade the city’s image (Harvey, 1989, 7). Since then, local governments have been driven by a new priority: the city must be seen as an innovative, exciting, creative and safe place in which to invest, live, visit and consume (Harvey, 1989, 9). The entrepreneurial city, hence, includes marketing techniques and methods in their administration and governing philosophy (Kavaratzis, 2004). At the same time economic competition, formerly played out between nation states, now more often takes place directly between cities. This growing competition, driven by increased capital mobility, has also led cities to try to establish themselves as ‘brands’. Openness to diversity and immigration increasingly serves as such a brand; or to refer again to the Council of Europe, ‘migrants…add a boost to…the local economy, they give a cosmopolitan brand…What is true in business can also be true for cities’ (Council of Europe, 2009, 26-28). In other words, the rise of the ‘entrepreneurial city’ has facilitated the re-interpretation both of diversity and its management. This has played a crucial role in the spread of interculturalism. There is a potential benefit of this re-interpretation. It actively reflects the increasing superdiverse reality of urban spaces. Moreover, through an emphasis on the utility of migrants and the positive value of superdiversity, this value can be made manifest as part of the social imaginary of people as Vertovec (2012, 305) has underlined. In cases, however, where policy makers are exclusively and narrowly focused on branding a city and creating an image to serve the economy, instead of taking a more comprehensive policy approach that looks for 22

Managing superdiversity?

substantial change and inclusion of different groups in the fabric of the city, the danger is of reproducing inequalities. The image of a city is just one side of the coin, and often there is plenty of ‘rot beneath the glitter’ (Harvey, 1989, 14). A primary focus on branding puts image over substance, whereby access to rights, and economic opportunities for less privileged groups, potentially become sidelined. Key players of the intercultural turn are realising this potential pitfall of interculturalism, as is suggested by a recent publication by the Council of Europe. The publication stresses the need for ‘inclusive democracy’, and adds that ‘embracing diversity is not a gimmick for city branding but a philosophy of governance and policymaking’ (Council of Europe, 2015b). However, in order to achieve an inclusive democracy, advocates of interculturalism have also to consider that the strong focus on the city and neighbourhood level prevalent in the intercultural approach is largely suppressing the role that the nation state plays in relation to dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. While cities have indeed increasingly become the relevant players of the global economy, the nation is certainly still relevant when it comes to the access of rights as well as the production of ‘otherness’. The problem, as Kymlicka (2016, 172) has put it, is that ‘rather than diagnosing the problem in terms of the deep structures of liberal-democratic nationhood as they are institutionalised in the nation-state and sedimented in state sponsored national identities, interculturalists tend to diagnose the problem as one of individual capacities and dispositions to interact across ethnic and religious lines’. In sum, inequalities are deeply entrenched in the superdiverse city, and shape the opportunities of the bearers of ‘superdiversity’ in different ways and at different levels, including the national one. As emphasised above, the ‘diversity advantage’ image of a city strongly relies on ‘(super-)diverse spaces’ able to create a cosmopolitan flair to attract innovative minds, as well as tourists and foreign investments. Some bearers of superdiversity, in particular those that primarily create the ‘spectacle of the other’ that provides cities with a cosmopolitan flair, are often confronted with high degrees of precarity at the labour market, or precarity in terms of their immigrant status. Other bearers of superdiversity, including high-skilled immigrants in the knowledge and finance economy, rely on the services of these workers in the low wage economy. These different interrelated class constellations (often accompanied by different types of migration statuses) are a central feature of superdiversity in urban knowledge economies, reproducing inequalities. Instead of focusing on erasing these inequalities, the entrepreneurial (intercultural) city proactively uses and reproduces ‘the spectacle of the other’ to market the city.

23

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

The question of how far policies can provide concrete guidelines to overcome inequalities, without being caught in rigid conceptions of difference, thus remains a challenge.

Conclusion This chapter addressed the question of how well the intercultural policy approach to immigrant integration is suited to address the increasing reality of superdiversity, and examined the emergence and spread of this approach throughout Europe. We have demonstrated that the Council of Europe and the EU have facilitated an intercultural policy turn across Europe. The underlying rationale of this turn is a strongly utilitarian one, which is characterised by an ‘economy–security–social integration nexus’. Immigrant integration is strongly linked to facilitating migrants’ utility, especially their economic contribution. Moreover, successful integration is expected to address questions of security and public order. The dominant intercultural policy approach in Europe, as we have argued, is strongly led by the ‘diversity advantage’ idea, which identifies (super) diversity as a competitive advantage for European cities in an environment of globalised markets. In essence, immigrant integration policy, as is evident in the intercultural policy turn, becomes strongly related to the competitiveness of cities in relation to broader, supranational circuits of capital accumulation (Brenner, 2004, 203). In many aspects, the primary policy concern with (super)diversity is not equality but marketisation. In sum, the implications of the intercultural turn and the ideas it promotes for superdiversity are multifaceted. The de-essentialist understanding of ethno-cultural difference inherent in the concept of interculturalism makes it well-placed to respond to the increasing demographic reality of superdiversity. Moreover, focusing on migrants’ utility and the positive value of highly diverse spaces, as the intercultural policies do, has the potential to provide a sense of local identity and social cohesion. Yet, a dominant focus on utility may also inadvertently contribute to the reproduction of inequalities that are constitutive of the superdiverse city. It is hence crucial that immigrant integration policies do not lose sight of a rights-based approach, otherwise one of the greatest challenges of (super)diversity, namely social inequality, will remain unchallenged (compare Faist, 2009). Resultantly, future research on superdiversity and immigrant integration has to further engage with issues of inequality. This chapter has indicated the need to take dynamics of political economy into account in research on immigrant integration and superdiversity. 24

Managing superdiversity?

Further scholarly effort has to be put into rethinking policies dealing with immigrant communities in times of increasing superdiversity (compare Scholten and van Breugel, 2017, 13). The policy implementation gap also deserves further academic attention. Especially at the stage of implementation immigrant integration policies tend to continue to reproduce static ideas of ‘us’ and ‘them’, instead of taking into account the much more complex demographic reality of superdiversity. References Ajuntament de Barcelona (2010) PLA Barcelona Interculturalitat, www. bcn.cat/novaciutadania/pdf/en/PlaBCNInterculturalitatAng170510_ en.pdf Alexander, M. (2007) Cities and labour immigration: Comparing policy responses in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv, Aldershot: Ashgate. Back, L. (2015) Losing culture or finding superdiversity, www. discoversociety.org/2015/05/05/losing-culture-or-findingsuperdiversity-2/ Bodirsky, K. (2012) Culture for competitiveness: Valuing diversity in EUEurope and the ‘creative city’ of Berlin, International Journal of Cultural Policy, vol 18, no 4, pp 455–73. Bouchard, G. (2011) What is interculturalism, McGill Law Journal, vol 56, no 2, pp 435–68. Boucher, A. (2014) Familialism and migrant welfare policy: Restrictions on social security provision for newly arrived immigrants, Policy & Politics, vol 42, no 3, pp 367–84. Brenner, N. (2004) New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cantle, T. (2001) Community cohesion: Report of the Independent Review Team, London: Home Office. Cantle, T. (2013) Interculturalism as a new narrative for the era of globalization and super diversity, in M. Barret (ed) Interculturalism and multiculturalism: Similarities and differences, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, http://tedcantle. co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/082-Interculturalism-as-a-newnarrative-for-the-era-of-globalisation-and-super-diversity-2014.pdf Cantle, T. (2015) Implementing intercultural policies, in R. ZapataBarrero (ed) Interculturalism in cities, pp 76–91, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Caponio, T. and Ricucci, R. (2015) Interculturalism: A policy instrument supporting social inclusion?, in R. Zapata-Barrero (ed) Interculturalism in cities, pp 20–34, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

25

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Carmel, E. (2013) Mobility, migration and rights in the European Union: Critical reflections on policy and practice, Policy Studies, vol 34, no 2, pp 238–53. Council of Europe (2008) The intercultural city: what it is and how to make it work, Document of the Intercultural Cities Programme DGIV/ Cult/IC (2008)01 Council of Europe (2009) Intercultural cities: Towards a model for intercultural integration, Strasbourg, https://rm.coe.int/16802ff5ef Council of Europe (2015a) The Intercultural Cities Programme, http:// www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/home Council of Europe (2015b) The intercultural integration approach: Cities realising the diversity advantage, https://r m.coe.int/ CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?doc umentId=0900001680493cae Council of Europe (2015c) Recommendation CM/Rec(2015)1  of the Committee of Ministers to member States on intercultural integration, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&Ref=CM/Rec(2 015)1&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorI nternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogge d=FDC864&direct=true Dublin City Council (2008) Towards integration: A city framework, Dublin: Dublin City Council. Faist, T. (2009) Diversity – a new mode of incorporation, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 32, no 1, pp 171–90. Favell, A. (2010) Integration nations: The nation-state and research on immigrants in Western Europe, in M. Martiniello and J. Rath (eds) Selected studies in international migration and immigrant incorporation, pp 371–404, Amsterdam: University Press. Florida, R. (2004) The rise of the creative class, New York: Basic Books. Garcés-Mascareñas, B. and Penninx, R. (2016) Integration processes and policies in Europe: Contexts, levels and actors, Cham: Springer Open. Gidley, B. (2011) Migrants in London: Policy challenges, www. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/policy-primers/migrants-londonpolicy-challenges Guardian (2012) Boris Johnson urges ministers to let ‘best and brightest’ come to UK, 4 October, www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/04/ boris-johnson-immigration-uk-economy Hadj-Abdou, L. (2014) Revising the immigrant integration agenda in the city: A comparison of political responses to ethno-cultural diversity in Dublin and Vienna, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 40, no 20, pp 1875–94.

26

Managing superdiversity?

Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler, vol 71, no 1, pp 3–17. Hiebert, D., Rath, J. and Vertovec, S. (2014) Urban markets and diversity: Towards a research agenda, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 1, pp 5–21. Hollifield, J. (1992) Immigrants, markets and states: The political economy of postwar Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, B. (2012) Response from Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, to consultation by the Migration Advisory Committee on the level of an annual limit on economic migration to the UK, Official undated letter of the Mayor of London to the Migration Advisory Committee. Kavaratzis, M. (2004) From city marketing to city branding: Towards a theoretical framework for developing city brands, Place Branding, vol 1, no 1, pp 58–73. Kymlicka, W. (2016) Defending diversity in an era of populism: Multiculturalism and interculturalism compared, in N. Meer, T. Modood and Z. Zapata Barrero (eds) Interculturalism and multiculturalism: Debating the dividing lines, pp 158–77, Edinburgh: University Press. Lentin, A. and Titley, G. (2011) The crises of multiculturalism: Racism in a neoliberal age, London: Zed. Levrau, F. and Loobuyck, P. (2013) Should interculturalism replace multiculturalism? A plea for complementariness, Ethical Perspectives, vol 20, no 4, pp 605–30. Lewis, H. and Craig, G. (2014) Multiculturalism is never talked about: Community cohesion and local policy contradictions in England, Policy & Politics, vol 42, no 1, pp 21–38. MA 17 (2012) 2 Integrations- und Diversitätsmonitor der Stadt Wien 2009 bis 2011, (Second integration and diversity monitor of the city of Vienna), Vienna: City of Vienna. Mahnig, H. (2001) Die Debatte um die Eingliederung von Migranten oder was ist das Ziel von ‘Integrationspolitik’ in liberalen Demokratien? (The debate about the integration of migrants or what is the goal of ‘integration policy’ in liberal democracies?), Swiss Political Science Review, vol 7, no 2, pp 124–30. Martiniello, M. and Rath, J. (2010) Selected studies in international migration and immigrant incorporation, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Meer, N. and Modood, T. (2012) How does interculturalism contrast with multiculturalism, Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol 33, no 2, pp 175–96.

27

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Menz, G. (2013) The neoliberalized state and the growth of the migration industry, in T. Gammeltoft-Hansen and N. Nyberg Sorensen (eds) The migration industry and the commercialization of international migration, pp 108–27, London and New York: Routledge. Phillimore, J. (2012) Implementing integration in the UK: Lessons for integration theory, policy and practice, Policy & Politics, vol 40, no 4, pp 525–45. Schiller, M. (2017) The implementation trap: The local level and diversity policies, International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol 83, no 2, pp 267–82, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315590204 Scholten, P. and van Breugel, I. (2017) Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity? The governance of migration-related diversity in France, the UK and the Netherlands, Policy & Politics, doi: https://doi.org/10 .1332/030557317X14849132401769, 1–16 van Breugel, I., Mann, X. and Scholten, P. (2014) Conceptualizing mainstreaming in integration governance: A literature review, Upstream Policy Brief 1, Rotterdam: Upstream. Vertovec, S. (2007) Superdiversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54. Vertovec, S. (2012) Diversity and the social imaginary, European Journal of Sociology, vol 53, no 3, pp 287–312. Vertovec, S. and Meissner, F. (2015) Comparing superdiversity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 541–55. Wood, C. and Landry, P. (2008) The intercultural city: Planning for diversity advantage, London: Earthscan. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2015) Interculturalism: Main hypothesis, theories and strands, in R. Zapata Barrero (ed) Interculturalism in cities, pp 3–20, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2016) Exploring the foundations of the intercultural policy paradigm: A comprehensive approach, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, vol 23, no 2, pp 155–73. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2017) Intercultural policy and multilevel governance in Barcelona: Mainstreaming a comprehensive approach, International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol 83, no 2, pp 247–66.

28

CHAPTER TWO

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity? The governance of migration-related diversity in France, the UK and the Netherlands Ilona van Breugel and Peter Scholten

Introduction Superdiversity challenges traditional modes of governance regarding migration-related diversity. It refers to multidimensional shifts in migration patterns (Vertovec, 2007; Meissner and Vertovec, 2015) that challenge policies directed at specific migrant ‘groups’ that would oversimplify the diversity within and between migrant groups and society. The increasing complexity that superdiversity refers to and the inadvertent effects of policy targeting were core elements of the so-called multiculturalism backlash in many European countries (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010). Furthermore, the deepening of diversity that is associated with superdiversity would complicate any policy oriented at the ‘assimilation’ of newcomers into the host society, as this host society itself is being transformed in response to migration as well (Crul, 2016). Although various studies have shown that superdiversity demands a rethinking of governance responses and government policies (Vertovec, 2007; Crul, 2016; Phillimore, 2015), little is known about what form or forms of governance and policy would best fit situations of superdiversity. This chapter examines whether, and if so, how and why, governance mainstreaming forms a suitable policy response to situations of superdiversity. The concept of governance refers to problem-solving strategies that are developed and implemented in complex networks of actors (Teisman et al, 2009), including but certainly not limited to government institutions and government policies (Colebatch, 2009; Wimmer and Schiller, 2003). The concept of governance mainstreaming has been developed more broadly in other areas such as gender, disability and environmental governance (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2009; Nunan et al, 2012; Priestley and Roulstone, 2009, 4–5; Verloo, 2005; Walby 2005). Building from this literature we define mainstreaming of migration-related diversity as the effort to embed diversity in a generic approach across policy areas as well as policy levels,

29

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

to establish a whole-society approach to diversity rather than an approach to specific migrant groups, in complex actor networks. In this chapter, we analyse patterns in the policy approaches to immigrant integration in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France from the conceptual lens of governance mainstreaming, and analyse how and why mainstreaming was developed as a governance strategy, and what role superdiversity played in the rationale for and the choice of strategy towards mainstreaming.

Superdiversity and the mainstreaming of diversity governance To understand governance mainstreaming, we will speak to three strands of literature; superdiversity, policy targeting and mainstreaming. Based on these strands of literature, we build the theoretical expectation that in situations of superdiversity, mainstreaming may be an effective governance strategy to address the whole diverse population and to manage the complexity of diversity within the population. Examining whether this expectation holds will be central to the subsequent empirical analysis of our three case studies. Superdiversity

Superdiversity is a key concept from the sociological and anthropological literature which describes the growing complexity of diversity in contemporary societies. It refers to the increasing diversity both within and between immigrant groups, and to the diversity of society as a whole. Labelling separate migrant groups is no longer considered suitable due to the diversification of migrant populations in terms of, inter alia, countries of origin, gender, religion and legal status (Vertovec, 2007), and differences between generations of migrants, within ethnic groups and differences in lifestyles (Crul, 2016). Other authors point to the phenomenon of ‘majority-minority’ cities (Alba and Nee, 1997; Kasinitz et al, 2002; Crul and Schneider, 2010) where the majority of the city population is made up of citizens of a first or second generation migrant background, thus making up a majority of different minorities. In the literature on superdiversity it is often argued that the ‘diversification of diversity’ calls for a ‘multidimensional reconsideration of diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007, 1050). This challenges the governance of diversity, as former multicultural or assimilationist models for immigrant integration are considered overly rigid to describe the fluid nature of societies in Europe today, due to their focus on separate migrant groups and integration as a one-way process. While the call for a reconsideration 30

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

of diversity policies seems to set root in policy circles too, judging from the references to (super)diversity in British and Dutch policies,1 among others, it yet remains unclear how this affects the broader process of policy making. Superdiversity was originally launched as a descriptive sociological concept that called for methodological and policy reorientations taking into account the multi-dimensional character of superdiversity (Vertovec, 2007; Meissner and Vertovec, 2015). This speaks to policy making in two ways: on the one hand it speaks to the call for adequate representation and service provision of mainstream policies in a superdiverse society (compare Phillimore, 2012; 2015), and on the other hand it speaks to the, relatively under exposed, questions of integration and identification this poses for a superdiverse society (Crul, 2016; Duyvendak, 2016). Since the early 2000s former models of immigrant integration policies have become highly contested. Marked by the multiculturalism backlash and assimilationist turn (Joppke, 2004; Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010) the policy field has become highly politicised, leading to a reconsideration of models for integration and policy measures, ‘foment[ing] a negative atmosphere surrounding immigrants, ethnic minorities and particularly Muslims’ (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010). Some argue that it is precisely this dimension of conflict over diversity and contest over models for integration that is missing from the superdiversity literature by not making explicit how diversity is supposed to be ‘accommodated’ in the mainstream (Duyvendak, 2016). Does this entail diversity as the new mainstream? Or assimilation into the (existing) mainstream? Others have argued that superdiversity provides itself the contours of a policy model or even a political discourse or strategy towards diversity. For instance, if integration or diversity governance is understood as a two-way process, as implied in the superdiversity literature, research attention should be paid to the ‘institutional adaption’ (Phillimore, 2015) from the mainstream side too. Policy targeting

A key aspect of the challenge that superdiversity poses to governance involves policy targeting. Superdiversity involves a broadening and deepening of complexity among migrants that cannot be captured into demarcated target groups. Yet, defining clear target populations is a core aspect of policymaking, not only in migration and integration. While the definition of target groups is key in effectively addressing policies (Sen, 1995), target group constructions always carry social and political consequences for the group at stake, as well as for society as a whole (Schneider and Ingram, 1997). The way target groups are constructed in policy design resembles target group constructions that are dominant 31

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

in society (Ingram et al 2007, 106). As such, policy targeting has played a particular role in the debate on migration-related diversity (De Zwart, 2005; Scholten, 2011; Yanow, 2015). One of the issues imminent to the formulation of immigrant integration policies is the discussion about whether migrant integration is best promoted by generic policies that are colour-blind, or by policies that separately target specific migrant groups. A dilemma between risking to sustain or reinforce inequalities in society when specific problems are not met with targeted policies (compare Simon and Piché, 2012), and the risk of strengthening ethnic and cultural boundaries in society through the degenerative effect of targeted policies themselves (compare Schneider and Ingram, 1997; De Zwart, 2005). De Zwart (2005) describes this phenomenon as the ‘dilemma of recognition’ and distinguishes three possible policy responses; accommodation (multicultural politics of recognition), denial (ideal-typical liberal solution, argues against the benefits of redistributive policies) and replacement (a compromise between denial and accommodation by introducing new social categories by the government). Connecting the dilemma of recognition to the literature on superdiversity, a key question is what role targeting plays in policy making in the complexity of migration-related diversity. A politics of accommodation does not suit the superdiversity thesis because it is considered overly ‘rigid’ to do justice to the complexity of superdiverse settings. One expectation is that superdiversity requires a targeting of the ‘whole diverse populations’ rather than specific groups, what could be framed as the politics of ‘denial’ in De Zwart’s typology. Alternatively, target groups can be replaced by other types of targets (such as neighbourhood-oriented or needs-based targets) to prevent the degenerative logic of the old group targets. This approximates De Zwart’s type of replacement politics. Governance mainstreaming

In the context of these tensions over targeting, ‘governance mainstreaming’ is increasingly referred to as a governance strategy to broadly address migration-related diversity. As a governance strategy, this clearly extends beyond the scope of formal policies and (central) government actors, it involves multiple types of actors from across various levels (Rhodes, 2000). Various studies have revealed the key role of NGOs especially at the local level in migrant integration governance (Zapata-Barrero et al, forthcoming; Zincone et al, 2011). However, the notion of mainstreaming is best known from its application in the policy areas such as gender, disability and environmental policy. Deducing from the literature from

32

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

these policy fields, three central elements of ‘governance mainstreaming’ can be defined. First, mainstreaming refers to a gradual embedding of former target group-specific policies into a generic cross-sectional and often also multilevel approach. This involves bringing target groups such as women, students in special education, or a specific topic such as care for the environment, ‘into the mainstream’. Gender equality for example, is rarely treated as a policy domain in itself but is rather addressed as a topic that affects many policy domains, such as education, labour and culture. As such, mainstreaming is considered as a strategy to prevent topics like gender or disability from being side-lined into a concern for specific actors only; rather it is mainstreamed as a concern for all actors and policy fields (Verloo, 2005). We expect that the complexity of superdiverse social setting provides a fertile setting for such cross-sectional and multilevel approaches. Precisely when migration-related diversity deepens and broadens, it becomes more difficult to isolate it as a separate policy domain. In fact, various scholars (compare Meissner, 2015; Crul, 2016) have argued that in a growing number of social settings, especially cities and neighbourhoods, diversity is becoming the norm. Second, mainstreaming involves an active engagement in incorporating the policy issue at hand in the mainstream. Mainstreaming does not (at least not necessarily) mean government retrenchment, but rather an active effort to create general awareness of the relevance of a specific topic. For instance, in relation to gender and disability this active consideration is often framed in terms of inclusiveness of generic policies for women and disabled people. In relation to superdiversity, this means that the complexity of diversity and the absence of clear target groups is a reason not to address diversity explicitly and to develop policy aims in terms of promoting the inclusion of migrants. Here there is an obvious link with the literature on interculturalism, which emphasises the need for policies to highlight the importance of diversity, for example, in education, to train intercultural competencies and to provide opportunities for people with different backgrounds to be in contact and to interact (Meer et al, 2016). Third, mainstreaming involves a complex and multi-actor governance strategy. In contrast to the traditional state-centric ideas on how governments can promote migration-related diversity, mainstreaming involves a more polycentric view on how a broad variety of actors (including but not limited to ‘government’) should collaborate in order to address migration-related diversity. This polycentricism (Rhodes, 2000) is also clearly manifest in gender mainstreaming, where government only plays a facilitating role in a much broader network of actors who seek to raise public awareness concerning governance issues. Furthermore, this 33

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

polycentricism also appears relevant in relation to topics that defy statecentric modes of problem resolution. This certainly applies to complex or ‘wicked’ policy problems such as gender but also superdiversity, where the role of government and the influence of state-centric policies may be rather limited. Limitations to the concept and implementation of (gender) mainstreaming have, however, also been extensively addressed in the literature (Booth and Bennett, 2002; Eveline and Bacchi, 2005; Lombardo, 2005; Stratigaki, 2005; Squires, 2005). The main critiques concern the vagueness of the concept and its objectives, the risk of ‘becoming everyone’s responsibility, yet nobody’s at the same time’ thereby risking to depoliticise and water down the transformational potential of gender mainstreaming (Caglar, 2013, 340). Without a clear operationalisation, gender mainstreaming becomes ‘an open signifier that can be filled with both feminist and non-feminist meanings’ (Lombardo and Meier, 2006, 161) running the risk of reinvigorating old group distinctions and inequalities, instead of overcoming them.

Methods The data for this study were collected as part of a larger comparative research project (UPSTREAM project). The project involves an indepth qualitative study of immigrant integration policies in five different European countries and at the level of the European Union. The data collection and initial analysis was commissioned by scholars in these respective countries. As mainstreaming speaks to the embedding of migration-related diversity into generic policies and policy fields we have selected both immigrant integration policy documents (as far as these are explicitly existent), as well as policy documents related to immigrant integration priorities. This covers policy documents from fields related to immigrant integration governance such as education and neighbourhood policies, as well as policies that were previously associated or linked to immigrant integration priorities, such as ‘city-citizenship policies’. This includes national as well as local policy documents, records of parliamentary and council meetings, research and advisory reports and relevant secondary literature. Immigrant integration policies between 2000–14 were analysed. The policy analysis was complemented with 16 to 20 in-depth semistructured expert interviews per country with policymakers, practitioners and (non-governmental) stakeholders involved in immigrant integration policy making. Following a fixed template every country analysis focused on the modes of targeting and coordination of immigrant integration priorities. The country studies are available online and are referred to 34

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

explicitly in the text (Bozec and Simon, 2014; Jensen and Gidley, 2014; Maan et al, 2014). Based on these country data, we selected the cases of France, the Netherlands and the UK for the current study. The countries each have very distinct histories of immigrant integration policies. Whereas the UK has been traditionally known for its more multiculturalist approach to race relations, France has rather developed an assimilationist approach against the background of the French Republicanist tradition (Favell, 1998; Bleich, 2003; Schain, 2008). The Netherlands is a country with experiences with both multiculturalist as well as assimilationist policies, but with perhaps the strongest and most explicit agenda of governance mainstreaming in relation to migration-related diversity (Scholten, 2011). As the cases cover different traditions of immigrant integration governance this allows for a most rigorous assessment of the trend of mainstreaming in Europe in different policy settings. However, despite these different policy environments, the three cases do share a long and diverse history of immigration which makes them likely cases of superdiversity. Although the migrant populations might differ per country, the ‘speed, spread and scale’ (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015) of changes in migration patterns and thereby the diversification of the migrant populations in these countries qualifies them as superdiverse. This allows us for a comparison of policy responses to these circumstances of super diversity. Our research question is thus two-fold: how and why mainstreaming was developed as a governance strategy, and what role did superdiversity play in the rationale for and the choice of strategy towards mainstreaming?

Diversity mainstreaming in France, the Netherlands and the UK For the three selected countries, we have analysed to what extent and in what ways the governance of migration-related diversity has been mainstreamed over the last decade. Subsequently, we have explored in more detail what role superdiversity and the dilemmas involved in policy targeting have played in this development. France

While France, along with the other two cases can be characterised as a country with a long history of immigration, this reflects very differently in the policies around migration-related diversity. Several waves of immigration have taken place since the mid-nineteenth century, in which many immigrants with different countries of origin and different motives for migration (that is, work or family reunification) came to 35

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

France (Kastoryano, 2002). Consequently, France has characteristics of a super-diverse society in terms of the diversity in countries of origin and different generations of immigrants. This diversity is however hardly represented in the statistics, since the French statistical system has not introduced categories related to ethnicity and origins (Amiraux and Simon, 2006; Simon, 2014). Descendants of immigrants are therefore practically invisible. This non-registration approach is a consequence of the French Republican strand of universalism with regard to migrationrelated diversity. The republican principle of equality is interpreted as a rejection of any form of recognition of groups defined along origins and ethnic lines which led consequently to colour-blind policies. In certain aspects, this French Republicanist approach does have much in common with the theoretical ideal type of governance mainstreaming constructed above. Rather than an explicit immigrant integration framework, the emphasis in France is much more on generic policies, addressing all citizens alike. The French policy approach to migrationrelated diversity has however undergone several changes, particularly in the implementation of policies (Bozec and Simon, 2014). An important recent development in this regard is the demarcating of immigrant integration policies to immigrants on their first five years after arrival in 2008. This meant a suspension of former programmes, now falling outside the scope of the renewed immigrant integration policies. Former funds dedicated to integration have been suspended under the new demarcation of the policy fields, but these cutbacks have not been met with other funding at the national or local level, or networks to enhance the visibility or monitoring of integration after these five years, thus weakening the integration infrastructure. De facto, the separation means a decoupling of (long-term) immigrant integration priorities. However, within the context of this ‘generic’ Republicanist approach, various replacement or ‘proxy’ strategies can be found, where immigrants (or French with a migration background) are targeted under different headers (Bozec and Simon, 2014). The ‘priority zones’ form an important proxy that disproportionally affect migrant groups. Area-based targeting, such as with the priority-neighbourhoods and priority areas in education, forms the most important proxy to indirectly target diversity in France. Many French policies are centred on priority neighbourhoods, for example the ‘Zone Education Prioritaire’ that receive more staff and funding for education, and ‘Politique de la Ville’ as a strategy to address social cohesion. However, with the separation between integration policies and ‘priority zone’ policies since 2008, no form of monitoring or diversity awareness is present anymore. Although some of the diversity awareness of the former FASILD (Social Fund for integration and fight against discriminations) 36

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

workers is preserved in their professional experience under the new areabased focus now executed by Acsé (National agency for social cohesion and equal opportunities), this is no longer officially a priority under the new priority-neighbourhoods framework (Bozec and Simon, 2014, 49). One element that is integrated in the priority-neighbourhood policies are the anti-discrimination policies. Although these policies are directed at all sorts of discrimination, such as gender discrimination or class inequalities, in many cases anti-discrimination policies have led to ethnic discrimination being explicitly addressed as is particularly evident in Lyon (Bozec and Simon, 2014). This is however strongly dependent on the priorities of the specific city or municipality as integration and anti-discrimination policies are explicitly separated. Finally, the polycentric mode of governance that would be associated with mainstreaming, thus a decentralised and deconcentrated governance of immigrant integration priorities between different levels and departments of governance, is partly recognisable in France. Despite the fact that immigrant integration-related policies are mainly issued by the French national government, some elements of deconcentration and decentralisation can be distinguished. At the national level, the dispersed responsibilities are scattered among multiple policy domains. An interministerial committee for integration was created in 1990 to reinforce coordination, but did not entirely succeed.2 Acsé and its predecessors aimed at financing national and local NGOs in several policy fields and thereby increased the deconcentration of governance. PRIPI (Programmes Régionaux d’Intégration des Populations Immigrées) and PDI (Programme Départemental de l’Intégration) are examples of regional and local optional programmes aimed at adaptation to local needs and contexts of the nationally set framework and objectives. Cities can develop their own additional policies. However, municipalities have limited possibilities to influence how integration and diversity issues are handled in schools and for the most part these initiatives are confined within the general frame of the French Republican model. The limited levels of vertical coordination are best recognisable in educational policies. Educational policies are to a great extent organised in ‘priority areas’. Organising these educational priority areas involves a great range of public actors at all levels and in different sectors, as well as non-state actors. However, policies are often seen as stand-alone policies ordered by the national (governmental) actors and implemented by a specific school without much coordination. Therefore, we can conclude that in the case of generic policies, some forms of polycentric governance can be distinguished, but the state-centric model is still dominant due to the importance of the national government in issuing social and educational policies. 37

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

We can conclude that mainstreaming applies to some extent to the French case. There is a clear cross-sectional and multi-level approach, but not with an orientation at diversity awareness and inclusion, furthermore this is characterised by a more state-centric than polycentric approach. The governance strategy therefore does not seem to be a response to superdiversity nor to the dilemma of recognising target groups. Rather than driven by superdiversity, the French form of mainstreaming seems driven by the Republicanist model. However, behind the scenes of this Republicanist discourse, we do see several important governance strategies to superdiversity. The French case reveals particularly clear instances of replacement or ‘proxy’ strategies where instead of targeting policies at groups, policies are targeted at specific needs or neighbourhoods. The Netherlands

The Netherlands also has a long history of migration, with a diversity of migrants coming from the former colonies, guest workers recruited from Southern Europe and North Africa, refugees and EU mobile workers. Based on the idea of ‘proportional participation’ the Dutch government keeps close track of immigrant participation in different fields. The Netherlands has an advanced statistical database, which in its data collection distinguishes between ‘allochtoon’ (western and non-western) and ‘autochtoon’ citizens: those born abroad or whose parents were born abroad, and native Dutch (Scholten, 2011). For the Netherlands, the description of superdiversity applies perhaps most to the population of the two major cities of the Netherlands, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, that have received most immigration over the past decades. Departing from its perceived multicultural past Dutch policies experienced a sharp assimilationist turn in the early 2000s, shifting away from a more pluralist approach to an approach focused on social and cultural integration, phrased in a generic message of social cohesion (Maan et al, 2014; Scholten, 2011). A number of incidents nationally and internationally led to a further politicisation of the topic. Newly founded populist parties such as LPF, Liveable Rotterdam and the Freedom Party placed the topic high on the political agenda. While briefly calling attention to the increasing diversity of the Dutch population in 2007, the Cabinet explicitly distanced itself from the its perceived multicultural past in 2011. Stating that increased pluriformity and diversity do not automatically lead to shared norms, but that this instead requires effort on the part of those who come to settle here, indicating a shift to a more assimilationist view on integration. In the integration agenda of the current government the focus on ‘Dutch society and its values’ is continued, 38

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

emphasizing the equal treatment of all its citizens. Dutch immigrant integration policies are characterised by a strong decentralisation and deconcentration: sharing policy responsibilities both vertically between levels of government and horizontally, between departments (Scholten, 2013). Although this approach dates back to the early 1990s, it was since the 2000s that the call for generic policies as part of a revision of immigrant integration governance came under renewed interest. The Dutch state played a role in launching the idea of mainstreaming at the EU and local level. At the national level the Dutch government explicitly distanced itself from the former multicultural years of governance in the 2011 Integration Memorandum, marking a strong decentralisation and ‘generalisation’ of immigrant integration governance whereby the national government largely withdrew itself from the field. The development was mainly directed at a movement away from former specifically targeted policies, which were now considered overtly rigid, costly and facilitating. At the local level, too, the outlook on diversity changed strongly. This lead to a redefinition of immigrant integration policies to a generic ‘City Citizenship’ framework, directed at the entire city population. Instead of distinguishing different target groups on the basis of migrant background and spelling out models of integration, the emphasis shifted to the participation of all citizens in the city. In contrast to the development at the national level, however, the cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam explicitly address (ethnic-)diversity in their city–citizenship frameworks. In these developments at both the national and local level the emphasis was strongly focused on the ‘generalisation’ of policies, thus moving away from both specific immigrant integration policies as well as specific target groups, for example, by discarding former migrant specific measures and consultation structures. Although Rotterdam explicitly mentioned diversity as one of the pillars of the city citizenship framework, establishing it as one of the four knowledge centres with the framework, a lack of clear prioritisation and coordination seems to lead to a watering down of integration priorities altogether. The introduction of these generic frameworks were followed by retrenchment measures, which proved to have a decisive influence on the ‘generalisation’ of immigrant integration policies. Leading to a strong focus of dismissing policies. The retrenchment measures form part of larger retrenchment measures in the social sector, characterised by a withdrawal of the state and a focus on the individual responsibility and self-reliance of citizens. A framework that also resonates in the revision of the immigrant integration governance. While former immigrant integration policies were ‘mainstreamed’ into generic city citizenship policies, a similar trend of ‘generalisation’ took place with regard to the target groups in generic policy fields like education 39

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

and social cohesion (Maan et al, 2014). In these areas we can discern a trend of ‘proxy’ policies, rather similar to the French case. Policies formerly targeted by, inter alia, migration background are redefined under new categories, often largely overlapping with the old target groups. In the distribution of extra funds for students in primary schools, for example, the migrant background of a student or his or her parents as a criterion for extra funding (along with other criteria) was discarded and reframed to the broader category of the level of education of the parents. In neighbourhood policies target groups are broadened to target groups based on level of income and education. Simultaneously, however, in the monitoring of educational outcomes categories are redefined, no longer distinguishing for ethnicity or migration background, thereby making invisible how the generic approach works out for the immigrant population. In terms of the implementation of the mainstreamed policies by the street level bureaucrats in education and especially in the neighbourhoods, the broad generic approach offered the discretionary room to address complex social problems, of which integration problems might form only one among several aspects. However, the ability to signal and address diversity related issues became strongly dependent on the experience of the individual ‘frontline workers’ and thereby becomes ad hoc and vulnerable (Maan et al, 2014). In sum, the Dutch case also reveals only impartial mainstreaming, similar to the French case. Dutch policies have clearly been mainstreamed in terms of fading attention to specific groups in combination with a gradual generalisation of integration governance intersectionally, as well as across levels. Much more than in in France this also involves polycentric governance. However, just as in France, this does not involve an explicit orientation promoting diversity awareness and inclusion in a whole society approach. This Dutch form of ‘impartial mainstreaming’ seems only very weakly related to superdiversity. Although the abandoning of group specific policies was partly based on the recognition of inadvertent effects of policy targeting, mainstreaming was also strongly driven by political and economic motives. At the national level the diversion from the perceived multicultural past formed an important driver for the redefinition of integration priorities in a mainstreamed approach. The politicisation of integration as a consequence of the multicultural backlash made policy targeting problematic in the Dutch situation and in the context of the economic situation the budget for migrant integration was effectively reduced to zero. Retrenchment measures thus also formed an important incentive for the decentralisation of integration policies to the local level. Subsequently, retrenchment measures in the social sector led to a further dismantling of immigrant integration priorities at the local level. 40

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, like in the Netherlands, immigrant integration policies have to a great extent always been embedded in other generic policy fields, particularly in the field of education and neighbourhood policies. The mainstreaming of immigrant integration, thus the generic embedding of integration priorities, can be traced back to the 1970s with the development of the anti-discrimination policies. However, similar to the Dutch case, it was in 2001 that this approach was intensified, and translated into a discourse of community cohesion (Spencer, 2011). The policy emphasis shifted from separate and specific immigrant integration policies to the broader social inclusion and social mobility priorities, such as the local ‘Community Cohesion’ approach. Sparked by civil disturbances in northern England towns, from 2001 on an emphasis on the strengthening of local bonds came to replace the former multicultural framework, among other things stimulating local authorities to avoid group specific funding. Despite the generic frame the policies targeted the integration of specific ‘dysfunctional (inward looking) communities’. However, the 2005 London bombings led to an entanglement of cohesion policies and homeland security and counter terrorism on the one hand, and an explicit superdiversity framework on the other hand. While the policy approach of the latter was generic, policies related to security came to focus on religious, particularly Muslim, groups. In the policy response to the bombings, Secretary of State at the DCLG Ruth Kelly, explicitly cited Vertovec (2007) to describe the uneven geography of superdiversity in Britain. Consequently, the concept of superdiversity was central to drafting the new guidelines for the management of diversity at the local governance level and establishing new funding streams (Jensen and Gidley, 2014). On the other hand, however, a turn to assimilationism is visible. The approach to strong borders is often accompanied by quotes such as ‘British jobs for British workers’ and increasing attention is being paid in education to the ‘common island history’, British norms and values, and British literature. In other words, an assimilationist perspective co-exists with the awareness and recognition of a diverse population (Jensen and Gidley, 2014). The well-known ‘British’ multiculturalist model was a strong decentralised model that was developed and implemented mostly at the local level. The year 2001, however, marked a multiculturalist backlash at the national level as evident in the avoidance of group-specific funding and translations into languages other than English. At the local level lingering multicultural practices and a more prominent pluralist mind-set can nevertheless be recognised (Jensen and Gidley, 2014). In 2012 the government launched 41

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

the ‘Creating the conditions for integration’ framework with an emphasis on individual agency and responsibility and a limited role of the central government. The programme was implemented in the context of broader decentralisation and retrenchment programs (Big Society approach and Localism Agenda), marking one of the drivers for the generic ‘Community Cohesion’ approach. In education a similar redefinition of target groups is visible, where targeted policies for educational backlogs are redrafted from EAL (English as additional language) to social economic indicators. At the same time there is a shift visible from facilitating measures to prescriptive measures, within an increasing emphasis on the duty to learn English and a reassertion of ‘British values’. In neighbourhood policies, as part of the broader community cohesion approach, we see a similar trend, the ‘generalisation’ of integration priorities to community cohesion entails a ‘culturalisation’ of the field, with an emphasis on the ‘excluded to join in’ (Jensen and Gidley, 2014, 26). Just like in the Netherlands, the UK case clearly reveals polycentric governance. Responsibility for migrants and integration has typically fallen within two departments: the Home Office is charged with immigration and border control and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is in charge of community cohesion (Spencer, 2011). The principle of localism, connected to projects such as government through community and the neighbourhood renewal programme, has had a strong influence on the early development of decentralised government in Britain. Since 2010, there has also been a perceivable increase in deconcentration. The emergence of the Big Society philosophy, increasingly addressing citizens’ social responsibilities, and the 2012 policy framework for integration ‘Creating the Conditions for Integration’ (by the DCLG) are important turning points for increasing governmental retrenchment. Civil society was inspired and stimulated to address issues that are important to them, instead of large-scale, centrally led and state-funded programmes. This approach is also recognisable at the local level. Finally, the trend of deconcentration is also recognisable in the connection between the state and schools. Schools received more responsibilities and the requirements to target the needs of specific groups were reduced. However, the school curriculum was simultaneously centralised to increase attention to British elements of history and language. In sum, all three dimensions of mainstreaming are recognisable in the UK to some extent. There is a generalisation of ‘migrant integration’ into generic policies, a diversity orientation in the form of community cohesion (although also criticised for its monist perspective on UK society) and its polycentric governance structure with networks of different national and local, and government and NGO actors. In contrast to France and 42

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

the Netherlands, the UK does have an explicit approach at community cohesion, which at least to some extent involves a recognition of the role of diversity within community cohesion. Another contrast with the other countries is that superdiversity is indeed recognised much more openly and broadly, both at the national and local level.

Analysis: incomplete mainstreaming and proxy-strategies for coping with superdiversity Taking from the literature on superdiversity, policy targeting and mainstreaming this chapter began with the expectation that mainstreaming could be a fitting governance response to superdiversity. This would provide a way to solve the dilemma of recognition in superdiverse settings by addressing the whole diverse population with a generic (rather than target group specific) approach and mobilising a broad governance network (rather than a state-centric approach). Our analysis of France, the Netherlands and the UK shows that in most cases we observe only partial mainstreaming, or in other words ‘incomplete mainstreaming’. In all three countries the trend towards more generic policies and away from group specific policies (if they have been there at all), was clearly present. The governance of migration-related diversity has clearly evolved into a topic that is addressed across various policy domains (such as education, labour, health, housing, and so on), and increasingly also across levels of government (localism in the UK and the Netherlands in particular). Although only to a limited extent in France, we also see a clear trend toward polycentric governance in the other cases. The role of central government has diminished, shifting to a growing role of local governments, and collaborations with NGOs and neighbourhood associations. This fits the broader development toward diversity ‘governance’ rather than statecentric diversity ‘policies’. What we do not see, however, is that these developments of decentralisation and deconcentration coincide with an explicit orientation at raising awareness about migration-related diversity across these new policy fields and levels of government. This appears to be a clear point of divergence with gender mainstreaming, where the explicit gender orientation is a central element in the mainstreaming approach. The UK community cohesion policies meet this criterion to some extent, although it is also criticised for its focus on British values rather than on diversity. We interpret ‘incomplete mainstreaming’ as a signal that mainstreaming also involves a degree of government retrenchment rather than active engagement with diversity governance. This can have consequences in

43

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

terms of dilution of a clear policy vision or aim in terms of migrationrelated diversity, as evident in the Dutch and French cases. Incomplete mainstreaming can be explained by our finding that superdiversity hardly played a role in the institutional adaption (Phillimore, 2015) of governance mainstreaming. In the UK, there were some references to superdiversity, which may have contributed to more diversity awareness in its community cohesion discourse. However, in most cases (and to some extent also in the UK) mainstreaming was driven by political and economic motivations. The political motivations are those responding to the multiculturalism backlash, which has made any form of group-specific policy to assist the integration of migrants problematic; and economically, as mainstreaming also revealed a degree of government retrenchment and hence cut-backs from integration spending in the past, as evident in the Dutch and French case which reduced their (national) budget for integration to zero. Our research does suggest that awareness and explicit recognition of superdiversity was much more present at the local level, especially large urban areas. In terms of policy targeting, this suggests that mainstreaming does not simply ‘solve’ the dilemma of recognition in terms of diversity governance. Rather than targeting the ‘whole diverse population’, as in a superdiversity perspective, mainstreaming reveals clear traits of De Zwart’s (2005) ‘politics of denial’. It is a strategy for not engaging with the contested issue of targeting specific migrant groups. This has as a consequence that the burden of incorporation is individualised and shifted to only those directly involved, the migrants themselves. Especially in France and the Netherlands the burden or obligation to integration is clearly placed one-sidedly with migrants and their individual responsibility to integrate, and ‘fit into the mainstream’ (compare Van Houdt et al, 2011 on the responsibilisation of citizenship). We do, however, observe a tension between ‘incomplete mainstreaming’ on the one hand and the growing manifestation of superdiversity in these countries on the other. This tension appears to be addressed by various replacement or ‘proxy’ strategies that target diversity but only indirectly so. The French ‘Politique de la Ville’, but also the various Dutch measures that are needs- or area-based rather than group-based, are clear examples of this. It enables a more pragmatic form of coping with diversity without needing to distinguish and address specific groups, while carrying the risk of completely diluting integration priorities, also referred to as depoliticising in the gender mainstreaming literature (Caglar, 2013, 340).

44

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

Conclusion Studies of superdiversity have challenged traditional models of integration and diversity governance. However, it remains unclear what mode of governance would be fitting in situations of superdiversity. This chapter engages with this debate in the literature by examining the current trend of mainstreaming migration-related diversity governance. It asks whether this trend is indeed fed by the ‘diversification of diversity’ that is captured by the term superdiversity, and whether mainstreaming indeed addresses the governance concerns that come with superdiversity. Our analysis shows that although there is a theoretical connection between the literature of superdiversity, policy targeting and mainstreaming, this connection is not made in the practice of migration-related diversity governance in the cases studied in this chapter (France, the UK and the Netherlands). Superdiversity is hardly addressed as a motivation for immigrant integration mainstreaming. Rather than superdiversity, economic and political motives were more prominent in all three examined cases. On a more pragmatic level, we do see mainstreaming applied as an instrumental strategy for circumventing or avoiding dilemmas of recognition in superdiverse settings. This involves in particular the application of replacement or ‘proxy’ strategies that develop needs-based or area-based means rather than group-based means. We thus speak of ‘incomplete mainstreaming’ which involves a trend away from group specific to generic policies and from a state-centric to a polycentric governance approach, but without an explicit orientation at creating diversity awareness and inclusion. Here lies a key difference between (migration-related) diversity mainstreaming and gender mainstreaming. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the UPSTREAM project partners, and specifically Xandra Maan, for their contribution to the UPSTREAM project upon which data this chapter is based (as referred to in text). Notes 1 See, for example, the references to superdiversity by Commission on Integration and Cohesion in the UK (2008), and references to (super) diversity in the Dutch 2007 Integration Memorandum, or Amsterdam city-citizenship framework (2011). 2 It only met three times: starting in the early 1990s, once in 2003 and once in 2006 (Bozec and Simon 2014, 15).

45

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

References Alba, R. and Nee, V. (1997) Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration, International Migration Review, vol 31, no 4, pp 826–74. Amiraux, V. and Simon, P. (2006) There are no minorities here cultures of scholarship and public debate on immigrants and integration in France, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, vol 47, no 3–4, pp 191–215. Bleich, E. (2003) Race politics in Britain and France: Ideas and policymaking since the 1960s, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Booth, C. and Bennett, C. (2002) Gender mainstreaming in the European Union towards a new conception and practice of equal opportunities?, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol 9, no 4, pp 430–46. Bozec, G. and Simon, P. (2014) The politics of mainstreaming, immigrant integration policies: Case study of France, UPSTREAM report, Rotterdam: UPSTREAM, www.project-upstream.eu Caglar, G. (2013) Gender mainstreaming, Politics and Gender, vol 9, no 3, pp 336–44. Colebatch, H.K. (2009) Governance as a conceptual development in the analysis of policy, Critical Policy Studies, vol 3, no 1, pp 58–67. Crul, M. (2016) Super-diversity vs assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 42, no 1, pp 54–68. Crul, M. and Schneider, J. (2010) Comparative integration context theory: Participation and belonging in new diverse European cities, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 33, no 7, pp 1249–68. Dalal-Clayton, D.B. and Bass, S. (2009) The challenges of environmental mainstreaming: Experience of integrating environment into development institutions and decisions (No 1), London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). De Zwart, F. (2005) The dilemma of recognition: Administrative categories and cultural diversity, Theory and Society, vol 34, no 2, pp 137–69. Duyvendak, W.G.J. (2016) The missing mainstreaming: Why superdiversity is not the new mainstream, Unpublished manuscript. Eveline, J. and Bacchi, C. (2005) What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender?, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol 7, no 4, pp 496–512. Favell, A. (1998) Philosophies of integration: Immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain, Berlin: Springer. Hollinger, D.A. (2006) Postethnic America: Beyond multiculturalism, New York: Basic Books. Ingram, H., Schneider, A.L. and DeLeon, P. (2007) Social construction and policy design, Theories of the policy process, vol 2, pp 93–126.

46

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

Jensen, O. and Gidley, B. (2014) The politics of mainstreaming, immigrant integration policies: Case study of the United Kingdom, UPSTREAM report, Rotterdam: UPSTREAM, www.project-upstream.eu Joppke, C. (2004) The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy, The British Journal of Sociology, vol 55, no 2, pp 237–57. Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J. and Waters, M.C. (2002) Becoming American– becoming New Yorkers: Immigrant incorporation in a majority minority city, International Migration Review, vol 36, no 4, pp 1020–36. Kastoryano, R. (2002) Negotiating identities: States and immigrants in France and Germany, Princeton, NJ: Prineton University Press. Lombardo, E. (2005) Integrating or setting the agenda? Gender mainstreaming in the European constitution-making process, Social Politics, vol 12, no 3, pp 412–32. Lombardo, E. and Meier, P. (2006) Gender mainstreaming in the EU: Incorporating a Feminist reading?, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol 13, no 2, pp 151–66. Maan, X., van Breugel, I. and Scholten, P. (2014) The politics of mainstreaming, immigrant integration policies: Case study of the Netherlands, Rotterdam: UPSTREAM, www.project-upstream.eu Meer, N., Modood, T. and Zapata-Barrero, R. (eds) (2016) Multiculturalism and interculturalism: Debating the dividing lines, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Meissner, F. (2015) Migration in migration-related diversity? The nexus between superdiversity and migration studies, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 556–67. Meissner, F. and Vertovec, S. (2015) Comparing super-diversity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 541–55. Nunan, F., Campbell, A. and Foster, E. (2012) Environmental mainstreaming: The organisational challenges of policy integration, Public Administration and Development, vol 32, no 3, pp 262–77. Phillimore, J. (2012) Implementing integration in the UK: Lessons for integration theory, policy and practice, Policy and Politics, vol 40, no 4, pp 525–45. Phillimore, J. (2015) Delivering maternity services in an era of superdiversity: The challenges of novelty and newness, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 568–82. Priestley, M. and Roulstone, A. (2009) Targeting and mainstreaming disability in the 2008–2010 National Reform Programmes for Growth and Jobs, Leeds: Academic Network of European Disability Experts, University of Leeds.

47

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Rhodes, R.A. (2000) Governance and public administration, in J. Pierre (ed) Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy, pp 54–90, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schain, M. (2008) The politics of immigration in France, Britain, and the United States: A comparative study, Berlin: Springer. Schneider A.L. and Ingram, H.M. (1997) Policy design for democracy, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Scholten, P. (2011) Framing immigrant integration: Dutch research-policy dialogues in comparative perspective, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Scholten, P. (2013) Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies: The case of migrant integration policies in the Netherlands, Policy Sciences, vol 46, no 3, pp 217–36. Sen, A. (1995) The political economy of targeting, in van de Walle, D, Neads, K, (eds) Public spending and the poor, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp 16. Simon, P. (2012) Collecting ethnic statistics in Europe: A review, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 35, no 8, pp 1366–91. Simon, P. (2014) Contested citizenship in France: The republican politics of identity and integration, in A. Cole, S. Meunier and V. Tiberj (eds) Developments in French politics, pp 203–17, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Simon, P. and Piché, V. (2012) Accounting for ethnic and racial diversity: The challenge of enumeration, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 35, no 8, pp 1357–65. Spencer, S. (2011) The migration debate, Bristol: Policy Press. Squires, J. (2005) Is mainstreaming transformative: Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, vol 12, no 3, pp 366–88. Stratigaki, M. (2005) Gender mainstreaming vs positive action an ongoing conflict in EU gender equality policy, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol 12, no 2, pp 65–186. Teisman, G., van Buuren, A. and Gerrits, L.M. (eds) (2009) Managing complex governance systems, London: Routledge. Van Houdt, F., Suvarierol, S. and Schinkel, W. (2011) Neoliberal communitarian citizenship: Current trends towards ‘earned citizenship’ in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, International sociology, vol 26, no 3, pp 408–32. Verloo, M. (2005) Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the concept and practice of the Council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equality, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, vol 12, no 3, pp 344–65. 48

Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity?

Vertovec S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54. Vertovec, S. and Wessendorf, S. (eds) (2010) Multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices, London: Routledge. Walby, S. (2005) Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, vol 12, no 3, pp 321–43. Wimmer, A. and Schiller, N.G. (2003) Methodological nationalism, the social sciences, and the study of migration: An essay in historical epistemology, International migration Review, vol 37, no 3, pp 576–10. Yanow, D. (2015) Constructing ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ in America: Categorymaking in public policy and administration, London: Routledge. Zapata-Barrero, R., Caponio, T. and Scholten, P. forthcoming, Theorizing ‘the local turn’ in the governance of immigrant policies: A multi-level approach, International Review of Administrative Sciences (IRAS). Zincone, G., Penninx, R. and Borkert, M. (2011) Migration policymaking in Europe: The dynamics of actors and contexts in past and present, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

49

CHAPTER THREE

Making the most of superdiversity: notes on the potential of a new approach Tina Magazzini

Introduction Since the 1990s issues of diversity and of migration management have received unparalleled policy and scholarly attention in relation to a state of affairs of contemporary western societies in which they are increasingly presented as a normal feature of a globalising world (de Jong, 2014; Pécoud, 2009). A 2016 article by Sara de Jong made a convincing case that the two fields (diversity management and migration management) have too often been studied in isolation from each other and that the policy studies literature could benefit by incorporating diversity management into the study of migration (de Jong, 2016). In light of the variety of ways in which integration and disintegration policies and practices are intertwined in Fortress Europe’s approach to its increasingly diverse population (Hinger and Schweitzer, 2020; Spencer and Triandafyllidou, 2020), this chapter aims at advancing the concept of ‘superdiversity’ as a possibly helpful bridge between the two disciplines of migration and diversity management. The term ‘superdiversity’ was first introduced by Steven Vertovec in 2005 (Vertovec, 2005) and articulated in an academic journal in 2007 as a ‘term intended to underline a level and kind of complexity surpassing anything previously experienced in a particular society’ (Vertovec, 2007, p 1024). The contribution of this chapter to the wider debate around the multilevel governance of superdiversity is to problematise the conceptualisation of identity in relation to difference, to explore how superdiversity might be employed in tackling the policy and governance implications of increasingly complex societies, and to assess its potential and limitations for integration/inclusion policies. This means opening up questions of identity of the mainstream majority population, and not only of the migrant minorities, and adopting an approach that does not essentialise ethnicity but instead looks at a variety of intersecting identities and needs. In order to do so, this chapter will first problematise the relationship between identity and difference as a way to rethink the dimensions and fluidity that superdiversity consists of; it will 50

Making the most of superdiversity

then provide a brief overview of the background, that is, how we got to the debate on the death (or serious illness, or rebranding) of multiculturalism (Barber, 2015; Connolly, 2010; Kundnani, 2002). Following this, the specificities of superdiversity will be located before, and finally, suggesting the adoption of a superdiversity approach in the drafting of guidelines on diversity management such as the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union (Council of the European Union, 2004) and the Action Plan on the Integration of Third Country Nationals (European Commission, 2016). The Roma minority(ies) in Europe will serve as a useful case study to exemplify how superdiversity can help us depart from the dominance of ethnicity as the main category for identity policy without negating its relevance, in order to encourage the development of inclusive policies towards minority groups and neighborhoods that take into account multiple variables.

Difference and identity: which came first? The core questions that underlie the main categorisations used in multiculturalism, intersectionality and/or superdiversity can roughly be synthesised as: how do we construct our identity, and how do we conceptualise the identity of others? There is certainly a component of agency in our defining who we are as individuals as opposed to ‘others’, but how much of it is personal choice, how much of it is inherited, and how much of it depends on how the rest of the world sees (and treats) us?2 Stemming from our sense of self and other, where does racism (ageism, sexism, and so on) come from? And how does this translate into societies’ integration and social cohesion (or lack thereof), particularly with respect to migration? A variety of attributes can be used as the basis for the identification and categorisation of minorities. These characteristics can range from language to religion, to professional affiliation, political orientation, citizenship/ nationality, gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, to territorial location, and so on. The importance attributed to any given identity varies in time and space, and not all of them have the same degree of intensity, social relevance, exclusivity, ‘changeability’/flexibility, nor do they entail the same legal consequences (Magazzini, 2018). The attempt, here, is that of trying to understand which of these attributes have been traditionally linked to diversity policies,3 how these are gradually changing, and what role superdiversity plays or could play in these developments. In terms of group and class belonging/affiliation, we tend to think that poverty and social exclusion ‘can be fixed’, while ethnicity and gender ‘cannot’ (European Commission DG EMPL and COMM, 2007; 51

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

European Commission DG JUST, 2012b; 2015; European Commission DG V (EMPL), 1994; Pakulski and Waters, 1996). This is obviously an oversimplification, but it serves the purpose of beginning to unpack some of the building blocks of the increasingly complex identities we talk about when we call into question a ‘European culture’ or ‘European values’. Even though there is a well-established debate in social anthropology and gender studies around the fact that ethnicity, race and gender are social constructs that are intrinsically linked to historical processes and power relations – thus culturally constructed and fluid (Barth, 1969; Gould, 2007; Hall and Gay, 1996) – diversity management policies are still fundamentally rooted, in Europe and elsewhere, on the assumption that we are born with a fairly fixed and stable race (‘visible minority’), ethnicity (used mostly nowadays to indicate the ‘country of origin’) and gender.4 Conversely, class belonging is seen as intrinsically changeable (the concept of ‘upward/downward mobility’), and culture, language and religion seem to lie somewhere in between the two: we inherit it – some aspects and traits of it, at least – but also cultivate it in a direction that is mostly of our choosing. Such choice (or series or combination of choices) is however determined by our life options, access to information, exposure to societal expectations, upbringing, and contact with different cultures (Abu-Lughod, 2002). The fact that our personal, individual identities are complex, not simply the reproduction of some given ‘community’ value seems a fairly uncontroversial assertion to make. What is often overlooked when drafting integration policies, however, is that this same mixture of ‘nature and nurture’ also applies to society as a whole. Different expectations and degree of agency are projected from the dominant majority population onto different kinds of minorities, shaping policies, but also a sense of community (or of alienation, or of a community alternative to the ‘mainstream’ one), and potentially reenforcing stereotypes and even stereotyped self-perception on behalf of certain minorities. The ways in which differences and identities are narrated, acted upon and legislated about are therefore of paramount importance. It is in this sense that it seems useful to bring Deleuze’s almost half-century old differential ontology into the picture. The way in which most current integration policies, discrimination surveys, and multicultural datasets are designed rely on the unspoken assumption that there are ‘identities’ out there that can be compared, and which differ one from the other, mostly based on ethnicity/nationality (Queen’s University Multiculturalism Policy Index, the Migrant Integration Policy Index, the Canadian Index for Measuring Integration, just to name a few). Instead, according to Gilles Deleuze’s theories, there are no identities prior to difference: all identities emerge from difference(s), since perception derives 52

Making the most of superdiversity

from contrast and confrontation. If there were no ‘them’, there could be no conceivable ‘us’ (Deleuze, 1968). By inverting the traditional relationship between identity and difference, he states: [t]he majority of philosophers…subordinated difference to identity or to the Same, to the Similar, to the Opposed or to the Analogous: they…introduced difference into the identity of the concept, they…put difference in the concept itself, thereby reaching a conceptual difference, but not a concept of difference. We tend to subordinate difference to identity in order to think it…We also have a tendency to subordinate it to resemblance… to opposition…and to analogy…In other words, we do not think of difference in itself. (Deleuze, 1968, p 12) While Deleuze’s argument that difference should fundamentally be the object of affirmation and not negation was not developed in relation to minorities, migration nor diversity management, his claim seems quite compelling if applied to this realm: in order to grasp beings exactly as they are, the concept of identity (categories, resemblances, unities of apperception, and so on) fails to attain difference in itself. The ‘swarms of difference’ are not something transcendent or outside of the world; they are ‘immanent expression’ just as are the identities formed from them (Deleuze, 1968; Deleuze and Parnet, 1987). ‘[A]nd they continue to exist even within the identities they form, not as identities but as difference. From their place within identities, these swarms of difference assure that the future will be open to novelty, to new identities and new relationships among them’ (May, 2005). Drawing upon Gilles Deleuze’s concept of identity in relation to difference, the propositions I would like to put forward as a departing point is, therefore, that the problem of majority–minority relations is often mis-(re)presented: it is not racism that produces racist behaviour; rather, it is racist behaviour that produces racism. The matter is not irrelevant nor tautological, in that it has very serious implications in how we can and should think of antidiscrimination law, inclusion and integration policies, and so on. We tend to think that character causes action, but more often than not when it comes to socialisation, moral behaviour, and collective identity, the opposite is true. Otherwise put, ‘Here is a way of seeing the world: it is composed not of identities that form and reform themselves, but of swarms of difference that actualise themselves into specific forms of identity’ (May, 2005). Since the categories that we use to identify ourselves and others derive from differences in the first place, there can be no ‘fixed’ or stable identities, if not in relation to the difference from everything it is not (its internal difference). Difference has been treated 53

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

as a secondary characteristic that only comes out when one compares pre-existing things: these things can then be said to have differences. But this network of direct relations between identities overshadows a much more subtle and elaborate network of ‘real’ differences: gradients, intensities, and so on. The result is that in modern democracies identity only becomes an issue when it is in crisis, simply because we overlook the fact that the inner core of identity is never autonomous and self-sufficient, but was formed in relation to ‘significant others’ who, to put it with Hall, ‘mediated to the subject the values, meanings and symbols – the culture – of the worlds he/she inhabited’ (Hall et al, 1995). Superdiversity offers, in this respect, a useful crosscutting tool to multiculturalism’s focus on ethnicity (operationalised as country of origin) and to intersectionality’s ‘holy trinity’ of class, gender and race, and allows for inductive as well as for deductive coding in analysing identities. This does not mean that all belongings ‘weigh the same’, nor that by bringing in new categories we must compromise analysing and comparing empirical data. Conversely, by allowing for categories that are not necessarily theory-driven to emerge, policy-applied research may have much to gain by employing the concept of superdiversity. (Boccagni, 2014; Padilla et al, 2014) A second premise, but not least important (and tied to the differenceidentity conundrum), is that in the policy and scholarly attitude towards minorities in general – be them immigrant (such as the asylum seekers whose legitimate claim to chapter 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights triggered the 2015 so-called ‘migration crisis’) or not (such as the Roma in most CEE countries or the First Nations in Canada) – there is a need to refocus and re-centre our ‘measure’ of difference: as trivial as it may sound, policies (even, and crucially, intercultural and multicultural ones) too often overlook the fact that, while we cannot and should not ‘equalise’ differences, and while not all differences carry the same consequences in terms of integration, majorities and minorities are equally different, meaning that we live at the same (cultural) distance. How we construct meaning, distance and difference, is a matter of purposeful, intentional choice, and it typically reflects in policies. To take a non-politically charged example (as long as one is not a Roma with a blue-eyed child), blue eyes are as ‘different’ to brown eyes as brown eyes are to blue eyes. A society composed solely of blue-eyed inhabitants will consider a brown-eyed person ‘different’, and vice versa. In short, the fact of something (or someone) being numerically inferior or a ‘novelty’ for the majority does make the minority more ‘peculiar’ than any given member of the dominant culture – it is simply the context that makes it seem that way. While this point has been acknowledged in conceptualising integration as a ‘two avenue path’ in theory (Bouchard and Taylor, 2008; 54

Making the most of superdiversity

Council of the European Union, 2004; Gidley, 2014; Ruiz Vieytez, 2014a; 2014b; Modood, 2020), most integration policies are still in practice designed by utilising the dominant, majority host society as a benchmark for integration with which minorities should aspire to catch up.

The debate on multiculturalism and its discontents While superdiversity is, as stated in the introduction, a fairly novel term, the issues that it aims at addressing have been in the making now for quite some time. When, in the 1970s, Keohane and Nye started using the term ‘complex interdependence’ in reference to both international politics and international economy, as well as to the interactions between these two arenas, realism was still the strongest framework through which international politics was analysed and interpreted, and nation-states were seen as the main actors in the political arena, while economics was largely considered its own independent branch of study. As interdependence grew ‘thicker and quicker’ (Nye, 2007, p 207) as a consequence of globalisation growing ‘faster, cheaper and deeper’ (Friedman, 1999), with increasingly frequent interactions between individuals and groups coming from different cultural, religious, linguistic and national backgrounds, it has become obvious that issues concerning the politics of nation-states, markets, but also, and crucially, group identities cannot be addressed separately. In our progressively complex and diverse societies, in which peoples’ identities tend to be multilayered, and do not always necessarily overlap with one set of political or cultural institutions, multiculturalism emerged as a field that acknowledged minorities and ethno-cultural communities as well as their claims for recognition and representation, particularly in North America and in Europe, to the point that as an American sociologist argued ‘we are all multiculturalists now’ (Glazer, 1997). Since the 1970s, the civil rights movement has been so successful in bringing attention to the issues of racialisation and inter-group relations that we have seen a whole set of law changes and of recognition policies. As Steven Vertovec put it during a talk given at the Einstein Forum in Potsdam in 2009 ‘Even the French have set up a National Commission on Diversity and Equal Opportunities. And when the French are talking about diversity, you know there is a major paradigm shift going on. These are amazing times we are living in!’ (Vertovec, 2009). While multiculturalism was strongly mobilised, particularly in the 1990s, in measures aimed at recognising the pluralisation of societies, academic scholarship around ‘the M word’ also rapidly grew into a research field in its own right – best known of which is the work by Will Kymlicka (1995), Tariq Modood (1998), Charles Taylor (1994) and Bhikhu Parekh 55

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

(1997), among others – and attempts were made at building indicators to measure it, with databases such as Queen’s University Multiculturalism Policy Index and MIPEX.5 Since the mid-2000s, however, western democracies have witnessed both a political and an academic drawing back on multiculturalism discourse with criticism rising on different fronts: on the one hand growing xenophobic and populist movements and political parties, coupled with declining welfare states and with the (real or perceived) security and refugee crises, have laid the ideological background of the condemnation of immigration from mainstream politics – the so-called ‘anti-multiculturalism’ (Barry, 2000; Huntington, 2004; Kymlicka, 2015) – on the other hand there has been no shortage of failures and pitfalls in the implementation of multicultural identity policies, which gave rise to what has been dubbed as the ‘post-multiculturalist critique’ (Benhabib, 2002; Phillips, 2007, p 16; Vertovec, 2005a). In Anne Phillips’ words, despite its noble intentions, multiculturalism became a ‘cultural straitjacket’ rather than a ‘cultural liberator’, and Phillips has not been alone in claiming that it required a radical overhaul if it were to serve its original emancipatory goals (Phillips, 2007). Consequently, if gradually the word ‘multiculturalism’ started disappearing from policies and legislation: while the policies themselves did not significantly change, the perception of a need for a rebranding, for a new conceptual framework, or both, led multiculturalism to being replaced ever more often by the concepts of ‘diversity’ and ‘integration’, which to date remain the two most used expressions in policy documents regarding migrants and citizens of immigrant background (Favell, 2013; Gidley, 2014; Matejskova and Antonish, 2015; Medda-Windischer, 2014; Vertovec, 2009). This shift in vocabulary can be seen not only at the national, but also at an international level: UNESCO, following criticism about its conception of culture being stagnant, based on a static idea of cultures as in need of being conserved and protected, issued a World Report in 2009 that revolved not so much around the preservation of culture or the promotion of multiculturalism, but rather around the concept of cultural diversity (UNESCO, 2009). Such a stance takes into account the dynamic nature of identity, and is associated with the permanence of cultural change (UNESCO, 2009, p 21). Another clear example of the shift from multiculturalism to diversity is the 2008 Council of Europe’s White Paper on intercultural dialogue ‘Living together as equals in dignity’, that was developed to contribute to ‘an international discussion gaining steady momentum’ on the occasion of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (Council of Europe, 2008, p 51). In the White Paper the word ‘diversity’ is used 78 times, while the expression ‘multiculturalism’ can only be found nine times, and in most cases not in flattering ways. At page 9, for instance, we learn that ‘The responses to 56

Making the most of superdiversity

the questionnaires sent to member states revealed a belief that what had until recently been a preferred policy approach, conveyed in shorthand as “multiculturalism”, had been found inadequate’ (Council of Europe, 2008, p 9). A few pages later we read ‘[W]hile this was ostensibly a radical departure from assimilationism, in fact multiculturalism frequently shared the same, schematic conception of society set in opposition of majority and minority, differing only in endorsing separation of the minority from the majority rather than assimilation to it’ (Council of Europe, 2008, p 18), and ‘[W]hilst driven by benign intentions, multiculturalism is now seen by many as having fostered communal segregation and mutual incomprehension, as well as having contributed to the undermining of the rights of individuals…’ (Council of Europe, 2008, p 19). In short, the dissatisfaction with multiculturalism seems to come from the fact that it is simultaneously both ‘not enough’ (it does not change the majority–minority dichotomy and opposition) and ‘too much’ (it gives too much power and rights to communities over individuals, creating concerns about issues of membership, belonging and especially women’s rights). It is noteworthy that while the protean nature of culture might nowadays appear to be a banal platitude, this change in political discourse did not happen smoothly nor did it take place overnight. An account of the factors that triggered or favoured such change would deserve a separate chapter, but the central fact remains that such change has occurred, and currently remains in place. At the same time, there is a general scholarly as well as political agreement that since the phenomenon of increasingly multicultural – or rather diverse – societies is here to stay, research on the topic of integration and on the management of diversity is much needed, and entails a re-visitation of legal standards, anti-discrimination law, human rights and citizenship laws, as well as of policy measures on matters such as minorities’ access to, and enjoyment of, rights (Hadj Abdou, 2019). In this respect, while perhaps not in all these realms, superdiversity can be a particularly useful tool for reframing cultural policies in ways that contribute to a ‘transformative’, and not only ‘affirmative’, policy-making (Fraser, 1995). In the following sections I will therefore reflect upon what have emerged as the main aspects of superdiversity identified by Meissner and Vertovec (descriptive, methodological and policy-oriented) to trace a phenomenon which, if not new in itself, I believe offers innovative opportunities especially for policy research (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015). I will do so by first illustrating the way in which the concept has come to be understood as a framework that can coexist, and to some extent complement, the more rehearsed ones of multiculturalism and diversity. I will then look at the

57

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

effects of superdiversity on cultural and social management policies with regard to a highly politicised issue: Roma minority integration in the EU.

Identity politics and superdiversity’s positioning in the debate Multiculturalism might have fallen out of favour with public opinion and with policy makers, but the simple rejection of the multiculturalist paradigm cannot will away immigration flows, its increasing numbers, its growing diversity in destinations and origins, nor can it ignore its demographic, social, economic and cultural impact on receiving societies. As a matter of fact, most societies are currently no longer solely ‘sending’ or ‘receiving’ migrants, but are both sending and receiving. Moreover, countries that have historically been ones that people emigrated from (such as Southern Europe) have, in the past decade, had to acknowledge immigration communities coming to settle in their territory and that are neither temporary workers nor limited to asylum seekers. To quote again the Council of Europe’s White Paper: ‘The cultural diversity of contemporary societies has to be acknowledged as an empirical fact’ (Council of Europe, 2008, p 19). While cultural diversity, compared to multiculturalism, offers a tempting alternative to an approach that has worn itself out of popularity, it maintains one of its main liabilities, namely that the unit of analysis has not, in essence, changed.6 There is increasing support around the idea that culture is not a ‘fixed’ category or practice and that it should not be essentialised, but when talking about diversity, the Council of Europe (as well as most national and local governments, media sources and academics) still has in mind mainly racial/ethnic diversity. It might picture a wider variety of ethno-cultural communities – particularly if compared to the classic migration patterns in which large numbers of people would move from few places to few places – but the unit of analysis is still ethnicity, despite there being ‘more’ of it, being more mixed, more diluted, or more dispersed. When talking about Islam, for example, even though the more politically correct policy makers might differentiate between Sunni Muslisms, Shi’ites, Sufi Muslism and so on, the policies and practices of diversity management still tend to lump together the religious affiliation of Islam and Arab ethnicity, presenting it to the European majority as a cultural trait. Policies of cultural (religious, in this case) diversity thus become easily ethnicised because the assumptions that underlie this representation of the ‘problem’ are still rooted in diversity as ethnicity. In this sense, I believe the term ‘superdiversity’ represents a more radical break from diversity, compared to the shift that diversity represented vis-à-vis multiculturalism.

58

Making the most of superdiversity

As Vertovec argued in 2007, and as Meissner and Vertovec have reiterated and made even clearer in their 2015 ‘Comparing superdiversity’ chapter, the issue is not (or is no longer) one of measuring, assessing or having to deal with a different ‘quantity’ of ethnic diversity (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015; Vertovec, 2007). The steps to be taken in rethinking public policies (for both minorities and majorities) should first acknowledge superdiversity as ‘the diversity of diversity’: namely by accepting that a pluralisation of societies has taken place over the past decades not only with respect of ethnicity or country of origin, but also in terms of legal statuses, gender, age, social capital, resources, education, religion, language, sexual orientation, physical ability and so on. In Western Europe we have often been told that there are only two ways for people to integrate into a society: the ‘British’ model of cultural pluralism, and the ‘French’ model, based on acceptance of Republican values and, above all, the concept of equality (Favell, 2003; 2013). As both ‘variations’, in the last few years, have been declared doomed, dying, or dead a number of times,7 it is worth taking a brief detour to give an overview of how the key conceptual issues came about in immigrant and integration discourse, and how we have arrived at superdiversity. As previously mentioned, multiculturalism emerged as a response to twentieth-century inter-group relations, addressing the challenge of racialisation, communitarism8 and integration, and is fully ingrained in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the New Civil Rights Movement of the twenty-first century. Its main driver was the will to guarantee rights and recognition to underprivileged minorities, and this led to research such as the Multicultural Policy Index. The MCP Index monitors the evolution of multiculturalism policies in a standardised format, and it is noteworthy that it distinguishes between three types of minorities – immigrant minorities (‘new minorities’), indigenous populations (such as the Ainu in Japan) and national minorities (such as Quebec in Canada). Where does this leave us in terms of better understanding diversity management? While such a project has the declared aim of monitoring the evolution of multiculturalism policies and majority–minority relations, what it really captures is the States’ (legal) stances on minority recognition. Which can indeed be an important tool for integration, but also risks reinforcing the ethnic paradigm as the most salient one in modern societies: pushing people to choose between being, say, ‘more’ Inuit or ‘more’ Canadian. Interculturalism, also stemming from the desire for integration, is an attempt to create intercultural mediation based on a flexible idea of culture and seeking a new idea of citizenship (Allemann-Ghionda, 2009; Gundara and Jacobs, 2000). It emerged from the criticisms to multiculturalism and it ‘prescribes’ intensive contact, exchange, coupled with the support 59

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

for cross-cultural dialogue and challenging self-segregation tendencies within cultures, while aiming at creating a shared identity of sorts. Both multiculturalism and interculturalism pose the question of whether certain rules should be re-thought in order to accommodate minorities, and the two terms are, beyond this synthetic sketch, two umbrella terms subsuming a varied number of approaches which are, in many regards, quite similar (Hill, 2007). As for superdiversity, it was coined originally to describe a society ‘distinguished by a dynamic interplay of variables among an increased number of new, small, scattered, multiple-origin, transnationally connected, socio-economic differentiated and legally stratified immigrants who have arrived over the last decade’ (Vertovec, 2006). Its major contribution is therefore that of taking into account a whole range of factors for identity, breaking the ‘ethnicity primacy’ rule. That being said, multiculturalism, interculturalism, diversity and superdiversity are by no means mutually exclusive frameworks: the fact that diversity has changed in terms of quality does not mean it has not also changed in terms of quantity. Superdiversity should thus rather be seen as the attempt to deepen, highlight, and make better sense of a phenomenon that was brought to the forefront of academic scholarly and political debate by the previous approaches (Berg and Sigona, 2013). Regarding the potential ‘dangers’ of superdiversity, while the term has attracted some criticism simply based on its ‘trendiness’9 (Ndhlovu, 2016), it has also been criticised on the basis that it risks ‘flattening’ differences, overlooking power politics and social inequalities (Modood, 2011; Humphris, 2015). Various types of diversity are associated with a higher or a lower degree of sensitivity to policy intervention (with difference from the mainstream usually translating into a disadvantage for the minority in terms of services and rights). When addressing the issue of the protection and promotion of minority rights, particularly in the area of equality and anti-discrimination, not all differences are ‘equally different’. However, while agreeing that the risk is present, levelling the field of differences is not something inherent in the concept of superdiversity. Using superdiversity as a framework for a kind of critical policy analysis that allows for inductive methodology might help overcome this difficulty, creating an opening for superdiversity to address debates on power, politics and policy (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015, pp 551–2).

The Roma as a litmus test for superdiversity The expulsion of European citizens of Roma ethnicity from France and Italy in spite of the 2004 Freedom of Movement EC Directive and the framing of recent mobilities towards Europe through a discourse of crisis 60

Making the most of superdiversity

(Cantat, 2016) have not only raised heated political debates in Brussels, but also marked a significant shift in discourses in minority politics, widening the minority and immigration debate from the classic issue of securing peace within national borders to perspectives of general human rights and non-discrimination. A particularly compelling case to analyse in Europe is the set of policies addressed to the Roma people, a minority10 which falls outside of the typical category of migrant communities with which diversity is usually associated, since Romani minorities have been residing in Europe for centuries and are as indigenous to the European continent as the descendants of the Founding Fathers are to the United States. Falling outside the typical multicultural scheme and of the mainstream political agenda, minorities such as the Roma find themselves in a particularly vulnerable situation, as they risk not only not being included (socially nor politically) in the political community that should represent them but not even having a recognised identity to oppose to mainstream society, and which would entitle them to cultural rights and special protections (European Commission DG JUST, 2012a). They are an acknowledged minority, in some countries as a ‘national’ one, but the perception of an oppositional identity and the practice of segregation is very acute and widespread, to the point that national Roma communities are sometimes perceived as more ‘foreign’ in their own country than non-Roma migrants in the same territory. Here we have the case of a highly diverse minority, characterised by a range of legal statuses, linguistic diversity, socio-economic diversity, religious diversity and so on, and yet the ‘Roma issue’ is still regarded, thought of, and consequently dealt with (both at the European and at national levels) in very essentialising ways, as if dealing with a generic and all-comprehensive ethnic minority, while a range of other dimensions (such as gender, socio-economic class, language, age, geographic location) remain largely un-problematised (Tremlett, 2014). This translates into policies that are generally addressed at the Roma community (since that is where the current narratives locate the ‘problem’), and not at the neighborhoods they inhabit, the society of which they are a part, the schools they attend or the employers or institutions that discriminate against them. In this sense, I suggest that superdiversity, for all its limitations (the concept is still a ‘work in progress’, as stressed by Meissner and Vertovec, 2015) holds important potential to shift the frame that informs these policies, by problematising the terms in which specific policy problems are understood. While it is not new to draw attention to the fact that all policies are problematising activities which contain implicit problem representations, and thus ‘how the “problem” is represented, or constituted, matters’ (Bacchi, 2009, p 1), this body of 61

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

literature has scarcely been applied to diversity management, and much less to Roma-targeted policies. Monica Rossi has eloquently summed up what the fundamental issue with the conceptual and methodological approach to Roma studies has been so far: Whether you believe them to be unassimilable or whether you want to ‘preserve’ their culture, the methodology to date has always been the same: to adopt criteria which are presumed to be anthropologically correct, but are instead an alibi for the inaction that freezes the Roma by either segregating them, or offering them ineffective and inadequate integration practices. (Rossi, 2009, p 71) An example of how this approach can be shifted by changing the conceptual framework from a traditional ethnic one to a superdiversity one is the case of a group of Romanian Roma who, having been evicted in 2009 from an informal settlement, joined an occupied ex salami factory in Rome (Maestri, 2014; 2016). By doing so, they successfully managed to change their ‘category of identification’ into a new narrative: they were able to shift in the public (and administrative) eye from being seen as ‘Roma’ (and thus, in the Italian policy framework, ‘nomads’) to being perceived as part of the ‘Metropoliz squatters’, thus no longer the target of specific and ethnically-based ‘Roma integration policies’, which in turn translated into being able to lobby their housing rights together with other (non-Roma) migrants. The emergence of the ‘squatters’ identification in this specific case, even though ‘squatters’ is not a category of any kind in current policies, allowed a group of people who had been acknowledged solely on the basis of their ethnicity to be seen as people experiencing severe housing deprivation, in a way that did not negate their ethnicity but that did not make their ethnicity the only possible lens to construct narratives and policies about them: ‘They have been considered another thing’ (Maestri, 2016, p 6). The ‘squatters’ identification is one linked to marginality and is charged with its own set of stereotypes, of course, but I consider it important in the sense that it allowed the Roma who had been evicted and who became a part of the Metropoliz experience to escape the ‘ethnicity trap’ (Rossi, 2016). Allowing for new identities and categories to emerge, and for the possibility of people to move freely between them and identify with more than one at the same time is something that should not be underestimated: ‘since the way the group is defined in each system in academic and policy literature is related to policy justifications, these groups are usually attached to a conceptual 62

Making the most of superdiversity

category with general implications for the discourse of ethnic/national/ anti-racist politics’ (Acton and Gheorghe, 2001, p 61). The argument here is that the possibility of multiple identifications that superdiversity enables (that is, the recognition of the fact that everyone’s identities are complex and not simply the reproduction of some given ‘community’ value) can (and should) deeply affect our way of understanding knowledge production about and around minorities. For instance, more useful than analysing the Roma minorities, their culture or lifestyles or markers of ethnicity (as these are fluid, contextual and generally defined by non-Roma) what Mihai Surdu has called their various classifiers and modes of objectification become what to look at: ‘Roma identity as we know it today wouldn’t exist without the discourse created by numerous experts…The production of knowledge about Roma presents a curious consensus on who the Roma are and typically reinforces stereotypes. Consequently, Roma identity tends to be recognised by the strength of the stereotypes related to it’ (Surdu, 2014). In short, superdiversity can help us move beyond a fixed and limiting notion of ‘ethnicity’ without losing sight of ethnicity, and it can be seen as ‘an emblematic departure’ from ‘the ideology of the “nation-state” which dominates both popular representations and academic objects of analysis’ (Tremlett, 2014, p 840). Partly because of its novelty and its appeal in policy terms (London successfully managed to brand itself as super-diverse as an asset for the Olympics) it offers a new avenue that might prove useful in what can be thought of as Nancy Fraser’s recognition policy via a ‘deconstruction of the mainstream’ (Fraser, 1995). This, however, requires strong political will on behalf of academic scholars, policy-makers and the media alike, in widening the way that diversity is typically thought of and portrayed, namely as uniquely concerning the two classic areas of 1) collective security and 2) economic employment (Ruiz Vieytez, 2014b, p 15). Politics will remain the underlying driving force in framing policy ‘problems’ in specific ways: the recent National Roma Integration Strategies would probably not have developed as they did, had France and Italy not started a campaign of evicting and repatriating Romanian Roma in 2010 as a response to populist concerns of a ‘Roma invasion’ (Clough Marinaro and Sigona, 2011; Magazzini and Piemontese, 2015; 2019). However, superdiversity can serve as a tool to dispel the fiction that such ‘policy problems’ are neutral, objective and not rooted in a specific (cultural) way of constructing it.

Conclusion Historically, the likely by-product of conflating popular sovereignty and liberal representative democracy in nation states in areas of mixed 63

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

populations has been the proclivity to sacrifice cultural minorities on the High Altar of nation building: ‘reducing the heterogeneity of the people is a symbolic policy which transforms the people into a nation’ (Mastropaolo, 2012). However, contemporary processes of social and cultural interconnection, fuelled by increased global mobility, are challenging and (re)-shaping institutional boundaries of identity and belonging. Faced with these processes, while a populistic discourse has slipped easily into a rhetoric of danger (of invasion, poverty, unemployment and cultural disintegration), new policies are being developed at the European, state, regional and local levels in order to catch up with demographic changes, and to cope with new and ‘different’ immigrant minorities, compared to traditional, national ones. What was in the 1970s a niche, cutting edge research field, namely that revolving around the concept of multiculturalism and diversity, has increasingly gained relevance and attention, and migration and integration is now a recognised and bolstering branch of social science, both fostering and drawing from public policy debates. Meanwhile, the object of study has remained anything but still: discourse on multiculturalism, interculturalism, diversity, and more recently superdiversity is the result of not only changes in demographics and in paths of migration, but also in the ways we (societies at the ‘receiving’ end of the migration fluxes) have chosen to frame the issue(s) of differences and identities. A growing number of academics are critical of methodological nationalism, and migration policies are increasingly seen to have more chance of succeeding if various levels of governance, including local authorities and civil society, are actively engaged in an integrated strategy (Amelina et al, 2012; Hepburn and Zapata-Barrero, 2014; Wimmer and Glick Schiller, 2002; Magazzini, Chiozza and Rossi, 2019). The EU Framework for Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 that was adopted by the European Commission in 2011 is a case in point that while the nation-state remains an inescapable framework for both political institutions and collective identity formation, immigration, integration and diversity management policies must acquire a broader (or at least different) framework than that of the nation-state and of ethnicity, if we are to make any progress. For some time now, the EU has pointed at the local level as a key actor in migrant integration policy-making.11 A critique of unidirectional approaches to migration governance leads not only to the identification of new actors in the formulation and implementation of migration policy and its governance but also to a new understanding of ‘policy making’ as a ‘thick’ assemblage of institutions, narratives and the strategies and action of the different actors involved. Against this backdrop, superdiversity can be used to challenge the dominant approaches that understand migration policy as based mainly on action by states by 64

Making the most of superdiversity

revealing a much richer, more complex picture made up of both topdown and bottom-up decisions. The challenge is to identify the different threads that shape migration and integration governance as a super-diverse and thick assemblage by unpacking multi-level and multi-scale spaces for politics and policies, and identifying the changing narratives in (but also outside of) institutional settings: in the case of the Roma minorities, as Vermeersch writes: ‘Depending on how political and social actors portrayed them or on how activists represented them, the Roma could be conceived of in different ways: as migrants/nomads, as a national minority, as an ethnic group or as a social underclass’ (Vermeersch, 2012, p 1203). This chapter’s suggestion for ways forward in operationalising the concept of superdiversity is to shift the focus from minorities to majorities, and from general theories to institutional local settings, in order to produce an alternative research framework to traditional ethnic studies and methodological nationalism. Beyond the case of Roma minorities in Europe, the use of a superdiversity lens to investigate migration and integration issues could further our understanding of the institutional dimension as well as of the social dimension of these issues. As any conceptual framework, superdiversity has, of course, both assets and drawbacks. In order to confront the criticism that it ignores issues of inequalities and power, superdiversity needs to be adopted in public policies by putting the emphasis not so much on the level (in demographic, quantitative terms) but rather on the kind of diversity to be acknowledged, accommodated and cherished, thus deconstructing the mainstream. The implication of deconstructing the mainstream through superdiversity would, in my opinion, on the one hand contribute to rendering a more accurate picture of our similarities and fundamental equality amid the many, multilayered identities built out of difference that each of us consists of. On the other hand, it would challenge the unspoken implication of the traditional framework that ‘white men are individuals – human beings in their own right, with personalities and quirks and rich, rounded lives – while other people are still defined as members of homogenous ‘othered’ groups’ (Bates, 2016). In short, superdiversity can actively help bring the debate on privilege and power relations into policy discourse. The main danger of superdiversity might therefore not be that of creating an ‘equivalence of differences’, but rather that of being the product of the society that it attempts to question: since superdiversity tends to be more individualistic than multiculturalism, it is more difficult to make claims around this concept. But at the same time, as differentiation is socially and politically constructed, it also opens up the discussion on the responsibilities of mainstream institutions (Faist, 2009).12

65

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

As UNESCO’s universal declaration on cultural diversity and Action Plan13 point out, the challenge is precisely that of taking advantage of the richness that diversities, as diversities, have to offer to the European project. The insight that superdiversity has to offer to this project is a subtle, but at the same time radical one. It allows not only for change, but also for contradiction, variation and opposition not only in majority–minority relations, but also within the majority itself, and within Europe’s decisionmaking institutions. As stated by the first article of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity14 ‘Cultural diversity, as a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, is as necessary to mankind as biologic diversity is for living creatures. In this sense, it represents the common heritage of humanity, and should be recognised and affirmed as such for the benefit of present and future generations.’ If culture is the sum total of not just ethnicity but also of beliefs, assumptions, language(s), customs, legends, songs, age, sexual orientation, (hi)stories, politics, attitudes, tastes, human capital, profession and more, then superdiversity can thus be a useful concept not only as a terminological marker of growing complexity, but it could be used as the tool of choice to design cultural policies that are not only affirmative in nature, but also that tackle the root causes of inequality by deconstructing the mainstream, in what Nancy Fraser has called politics of transformation. The major shift here, it seems, is that of moving the focus from entities to relations, allowing an exploration of diversity(ies) within the majority population and its decision making bodies as well. In this sense, this could indeed be the ‘radical overhaul’ of multiculturalism for which some scholars have been calling. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive feedback. Funding The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n. 316796. Notes 1 Even if we chose to take country of origin as the only meaningful category, we would have to account for the shifts in borders and citizenship laws, as an anecdote in Agnew’s Making political geography illustrates: an old man says that he was born in the Austro-Hungarian empire, he went to school in Czechoslovakia, he got married in Hungary, he worked most of his life 66

Making the most of superdiversity

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

in the USSR and now lives in Ukraine. When his interlocutor comments that he must have travelled a great deal, he replies ‘Not at all! I have never left Mukacheve’ (Agnew, 2002). For a definition of diversity related to this debate, see (Vertovec, 2012; Wessendorf, 2013). Diversity policies typically entail recognition and appreciation of cultural diversity, support for immigrant associations, promotion of interfaith dialogue and more generally policies aimed at fostering immigrant integration (Ambrosini, 2016). Transgender and transsexual studies and identity are out of the scope of the analysis of this chapter, which does not mean that they should be overlooked in formulating equality policies (for a problematisation of gender and identity, see Butler, 1990). This is not to obliterate the differences that exist among the authors mentioned. For an overview of the heterogeneity and dissonances between multicultural schools of thought and interpretations, see (Uberoi and Modood, 2015). For an account of the shift from multiculturalism to diversity, see (Boccagni, 2014). Angela Merkel: ‘multiculturalism has utterly failed’, October 2010; David Cameron: ‘muscular liberalism against passive tolerance’, February 2011; Manuel Valls: ‘Roma lifestyles as “clearly in confrontation” with French ways of life’, September 2013. French scholar Jean-Paul Fitoussi described communitarianism in a 2008 article as follows: ‘The temptation of communitarianism, which the French have debated for at least a decade, comes from the wish to turn the failure of “genuine” equality into something positive. It offers integration by default within the differentiated space of various communities – a sort of imprisonment by civilization’ (Fitoussi, 2008). Vertovec’s 2007 Superdiversity and its implications is currently the most cited article in Ethnic and Racial Studies’ history. On the debate on the construction of a political identity of the Roma, and whether we should think in terms of one or multiple minorities, see Magazzini, 2016; Surdu, 2015; van Baar and Kóczé, 2020; Magazzini, 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European Agenda on Migration. Brussels, 13.5.2015. COM(2015) 240 final. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/antitrafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/communication_on_the_european_ agenda_on_migration_en.pdf the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region, Migration management at the local level, International Organisation for Migration (IOM), 2015, and the Committee of the Regions, Report 67

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

11

12

13

on the role of local and regional authorities in managing migration in the Mediterranean (CoR- 2014-01464). Available at http://cor.europa.eu/ en/activities/arlem/Documents/rapport-ecoter-migration-2014-en.pdf In whatever way one understands liberal democratic national-popular sovereignty, the demos is always defined by mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, mechanisms that by virtue of their inescapable national dimension, are always cultural. See Main Lines of an Action Plan for the Implementation of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, http://www.unesco.org/ fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/5_Cultural_Diversity_EN.pdf Accepted unanimously by the 185 countries represented at the 31st session of the General Conference, in 2001.

References Abu-Lughod, L. (2002) Do Muslim women really need saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its others, American Anthropologist, vol 104, no 3, pp 783–90, doi: org/10.1525/ aa.2002.104.3.783 Acton, T. and Gheorghe, N. (2001) Citizens of the world and nowhere: minority, ethnic and human rights for Roma, in W. Guy (ed) Between the past and future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire, pp 54-70. Agnew, J. (2002) Making political geography, London: Arnold. Allemann-Ghionda, C. (2009) From intercultural education to the inclusion of diversity: Theories and policy in Europe, in The Routledge international companion to multicultural education, pp 134–45, Oxford: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Ambrosini, M. (2016) Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies: A study on European cities, Policy & Politics, https://doi.org/10.1332/ 030557316X14745534309609 Amelina, A., Nergiz, D., Faist, T. and Glick Schiller, N. (eds) (2012) Beyond methodological nationalism: Research methodologies for cross-border studies, New York: Routledge. Bacchi, C.L. (2009) Introducing a ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ approach to policy analysis, in Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be?, pp 1–53, Cambridge: Pearson. Barber, B. (2015) Can democracy be multicultural? Can multiculturalism be democratic?, in V. Uberoi and T. Modood (eds) Multiculturalism rethought: Interpretations, dilemmas and new directions, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Barry, B. (2000) Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism, Cambridge: Polity Press. 68

Making the most of superdiversity

Barth, F. (1969) Introduction, in Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference, pp 9–39, Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Bates, L. (2016) ‘Normal’ in our society means male – women are written out of the story, Guardian, 17 August, London. Benhabib, S. (2002) The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Berg, M.L. and Sigona, N. (2013) Ethnography, diversity and urban space, Identities 20, 4, 347–60, doi: org/10.1080/1070289X.2013.822382 Boccagni, P. (2014) (Super)diversity and the migration–social work nexus: A new lens on the field of access and inclusion?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 608–20, doi: org/10.1080/01419870.2015.980291 Bouchard, G. and Taylor, C. (2008) Building the future: A time for reconciliation, Abridged Report, Legal deposit – Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Gouvernement du Québec. Available at: http://red.pucp.edu.pe/wp-content/uploads/biblioteca/ buildingthefutureGerardBouchardycharlestaylor.pdf Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity, Self and subjectivity, New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, doi: org/10.1002/9780470774847.ch19 Cantat, C. (2016) Rethinking mobilities: solidarity and migrant struggles beyond narratives of crisis, Intersections: East European Journal of Society and Politics, vol 2, no 4, pp 11–32. Clough Marinaro, I. and Sigona, N. (2011) Introduction anti-gypsyism and the politics of exclusion: Roma and Sinti in contemporary Italy, Journal of Modern Italian Studies, vol 16, no 5, pp 583–89, doi: org/10. 1080/1354571X.2011.622467 Connolly, K. (2010) Angela Merkel declares death of German multiculturalism, Guardian, 17 October, Berlin, www.theguardian.com/ world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-germany-multiculturalism-failures Council of Europe (2008) White Paper on intercultural dialogue: Living together as equals in dignity, Council of Europe, www.coe.int/t/dg4/ intercultural/Source/White%20Paper_final_revised_EN.pdf Council of the European Union (2004) Council conclusions on immigrant integration policy in the European Union (Vol 4), Press Release, 14615/04 (Presse 321), available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/82745.pdf de Jong, S. (2014) Diversity politics and the politics of difference, in U. Vieten (ed) Revisiting Iris Marion Young on normalization, inclusion and democracy, pp 87–105, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. de Jong, S. (2016) Converging logics? Managing migration and managing diversity, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 42, no 3, pp 341–58, doi: org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1074857 69

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Deleuze, G. (1968) Difference and repetition, Paris: Presses Universitaire de France. Deleuze, G. and Parnet, C. (1987) Dialogues (Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam), London: Althone Press. European Commission (2016) Action plan on the integration of third country nationals, COM 377 final, Brussels: European Commission, https:// ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/news/europe-integration-actionplan-of-third-country-nationals-launched European Commission DG EMPL and COMM (2007) Discrimination in the European Union, summary: Special Eurobarometer, http://ec.europa. eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_263_sum_en.pdf European Commission DG JUST (2012a) Discrimination in the EU in 2012, Brussels: European Commission European Commission DG JUST (2012b) Special Eurobarometer 393: Discrimination in the EU in 2012 (November), 238, http://ec.europa. eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm European Commission DG JUST (2015) Discrimination in the EU in 2015, Brussels: European Commission European Commission DG V (EMPL) (1994) La perception de la pauvrete et de l’exclusion sociale en Europe, Eurobarometre (Vol 40), Brussels: European Commission. Faist, T. (2009) Diversity – a new mode of incorporation?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 32, no 1, pp 171–90. Favell, A. (2003) Integration nations: The nation-state and research on immigrants in western Europe, Comparative Social Research, vol 22, pp 13–42, doi: org/10.1016/S0195-6310(03)22001-9 Favell, A. (2013) The changing face of ‘integration’ in a mobile Europe perspectives on Europe, Perspectives on Europe, vol 43, no 1, pp 53–8. Fitoussi, J.-P. (2008) Ghettoizing identity, The Vienna Review, www. viennareview.net/commentary/voices-of-others/ghettoizing-identity Fraser, N. (1995) From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post-Socialist’ age, New Left Review, 212, 68–93, doi: org/10.1002/9780470756119.ch54 Friedman, T.L. (1999) The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gidley, B. (2014) Integration, in B. Anderson and M. Keith (eds) Migration: A COMPAS Anthology, Oxford: COMPAS, Available at: http://compasanthology.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Gidley_ COMPASMigrationAnthology.pdf Glazer, N. (1997) We are all multiculturalist now, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

70

Making the most of superdiversity

Gould, R. (2007) Language dreamers: Race and the politics of etymology in the Caucasus, in B. Grant and L. Yalçın-Heckmann (eds) Caucasus paradigms: Anthropologies, histories, and the making of a world area, Berlin: LIT Verlag. Gundara, J. and Jacobs, S. (2000) Intercultural Europe: Diversity and social policy, Aldershot: Ashgate. Hall, S. and Gay, P Du. (1996) Questions of cultural identity, The British Journal of Sociology 48, 1, 208, doi: org/10.2307/591920 Hall, S., Held, D., Hubert, D. and Thompson, K. (1995) Modernity: An introduction to modern societies, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hadj Abdou, L. (2019) Immigrant integration: the governance of ethnocultural differences, Comparative Migration Studies, vol 7, no 15, pp 1–8. Hepburn, E. and Zapata-Barrero, R. (2014) The politics of immigration in multi-level states: Governance and political parties, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hill, I. (2007) Multicultural and international education: Never the twain shall meet?, Review of Education, vol 53, no 3, pp 245–64. Hinger, S. and Schweitzer, R. (2020) Politics of (dis)integration, Springer: IMISCOE Research Series. Humphris, R. (2015) Intersectionality and superdiversity: What’s the difference?, Institute for Research into Superdiversity (IRiS), University of Birmingham, Key Concepts Roundtable Series, 30 April 2015. Available at: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/ superdiversity-institute/events/previous-events/2015/roundtableseries-intersectionality-30-4-15.aspx Huntington, S. (2004) Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity, New York: Simon and Schuster. Kundnani, A. (2002) The death of multiculturalism, Race and Class, vol 43, no 4, pp 67–72. Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural citizenship. A liberal theory of minority rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press, DOI: 10.1093/0198290918.001.001 Kymlicka, W. (1999) Liberal complacencies, in S.M. Okin, J. Cohen, M. Howard and M.-C. Nussbaum (eds) Is multiculturalism bad for women?, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2015) Solidarity in diverse societies: beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism, Comparative Migration Studies, vol 3, p 17, DOI 10.1186/s40878-015-0017-4, available at: https:// comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/ s40878-015-0017-4 Maestri, G. (2014) The economic crisis as opportunity: How austerity generates new strategies and solidarities for negotiating Roma access to housing in Rome, City, doi: org/10.1080/13604813.2014.962895 71

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Maestri, G. (2016) Are they nomads, travellers or Roma? An analysis of the multiple effects of naming assemblages, Area, doi: org/10.1111/ area.12273 Magazzini, T. (2016) Cultural institutions as combat sport? Reflections on the European Roma Institute (for Arts and Culture), The Age of Human Rights Journal, vol 7, December (Special Issue on Identity, Belonging and Human Rights: cultural cues in integration processes) pp 50–76, doi: 10.17561/ tahrj.n7.9. Magazzini, T. (2018) What’s in a name? Causes and consequences of labelling minorities as ‘national’ or ‘migrant’: Roma in Italy and Spain, International Migration, vol 56, issue 3, pp 203–220. Magazzini, T. (2020) Integration as an essentially contested concept: questioning the assumptions behind the national Roma integration strategies of Italy and Spain, in S. Hinger and R. Schweitzer (eds) Politics of (dis)integration, Springer: IMISCOE Research Series, pp 41–59. Magazzini, T. and Piemontese, S. (2015) Modèles de gestion de la diversité en Europe et migrations roms: Le cas espagnol, Confluences Mediterranee, vol 93 (Spring), pp 51–62. Magazzini, T. and Piemontese, S. (2019) Constructing Roma migrants: European narratives and local governance, Springer: IMISCOE Research Series. Magazzini, T., Chiozza, E. and Rossi, M. (2019) Conformism or inadequacy of Roma inclusion policies? Missed opportunities at the European and local levels, in T. Magazzini and S. Piemontese (eds) Constructing Roma migrants: European narratives and local governance, Springer: IMISCOE Research Series, pp. 51–67. Mastropaolo, A. (2012) Is democracy a lost cause? Paradoxes of an imperfect invention, Translated by Clare Tame, European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Press, Colchester: University of Essex. Matejskova, T. and Antonish, M. (eds) (2015) Governing through diversity: Migration societies in multiculturalist times (Global Diversities), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. May, T. (2005) Gilles Deleuze: An introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Medda-Windischer, R. (2014) Integration of New and Old minorities in Europe: Different or similar policies and indicators? (INTEGRIM series No 10), www.integrim.eu Meissner, F. and Vertovec, S. (2015) Comparing super-diversity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 541–55. doi: org/10.1080/01419 870.2015.980295

72

Making the most of superdiversity

Modood, T. (1998) Anti-essentialism, multiculturalism and the ‘Recognition’ of religious groups, The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol 6, no 4, pp 378–99. Modood, T. (2011) Multiculturalism and integration: Struggling with confusion, Published by the European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Working paper: ACCEPT PLURALISM 7th Framework Programme Project, Via dei Roccettini 9, 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole – Italy. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/ cultureheritage/mars/source/resources/references/others/38%20-%20 Multiculturalisme%20and%20Integration%20-%20Modood%202011. pdf Modood, T. (2020) Multiculturalism as a new form of nationalism? Nations and Nationalism, vol 26, issue 2, pp 308–313. Ndhlovu, F. (2016) A decolonial critique of diaspora identity theories and the notion of superdiversity, Diaspora Studies, vol 9, no 1, pp 28–40. doi: org/10.1080/09739572.2015.1088612 Nye, J.J. (2007) Understanding international conflict: An introduction to theory and history (6th edn), New York: Longman. Padilla, B,. Azevedo, J. and Olmos-Alcaraz, A. (2014) Superdiversity and conviviality: exploring frameworks for doing ethnography in Southern European intercultural cities, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 621-635, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.980294 Pakulski, J. and Waters, M. (1996) The death of class, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Parekh, B. (1997) Dilemmas of a multicultural theory of citizenship, constellations, An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, vol 4, no 1, pp 54–62, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.00036 Pécoud, A. (2009) The UN Convention on Migrant Workers’ Rights and International Migration Management, Global Society, vol 23, no 3, pp 333–350. doi: org/10.1080/13600820902958741 Phillips, A. (2007) Multiculturalism without culture, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rossi, M. (2009) Istituzioni, Rom e politiche sociali a Roma: Spunti per un dibattito critico, in L. D’Orsi and M. Torani (eds) Rom(a). Nomadi o Monadi? Prospettive antropologiche, pp 61–72, Rome, Italy: Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza. Rossi, M. (2016) La trappola dell’etnicità: gabbia e risorsa, Il Manifesto, 27 February, Rome, http://ilmanifesto.info/la-trappola-delletnicitagabbia-e-risorsa/ Ruiz Vieytez, E.J. (2014a) Cultural diversities and human rights: History, minorities, pluralization, The Age of Human Rights Journal, vol 3 (December), pp 1–31. 73

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Ruiz Vieytez, E.J. (2014b) United in diversity? On cultural diversity, democracy and human rights (Diversitas), Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang S.A. Surdu, M. (2014) Who defines Roma?, www.opensocietyfoundations. org/voices/who-defines-roma Surdu, M. (2015) Expert frames: Scientific and policy practices of Roma classification, Budapest: Central European University Press. Taylor, C. (1994) Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tremlett, A. (2014) Making a difference without creating a difference: Super-diversity as a new direction for research on Roma minorities, Ethnicities, vol 14, no 6, pp 830–48. Uberoi, V. and Modood, T. (eds) (2015) Multiculturalism rethought: Interpretations, dilemmas and new directions, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. UNESCO (2009) Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue: UNESCO World Report, Paris: UNESCO. van Baar, H. and Kóczé, A. (2020) The Roma and their struggle for identity in contemporary Europe, New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Vermeersch, P. (2012) Reframing the Roma: EU initiatives and the politics of reinterpretation, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 38, no 8, pp 1195–1212. Vertovec, S. (2005) Opinion: Super-diversity revealed, BBC News, 20 September, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4266102.stm Vertovec, S. (2006) The emergence of super-diversity in Britain, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society Working Paper 25, Oxford: University of Oxford. Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54, doi: org/10.1080/01419870701599465 Vertovec, S. (2009) Conceiving diversity. Germany: Einstein forum, www. youtube.com/watch?v=Sp0OhvTSzBo Vertovec, S. (2012) ‘Diversity’ and the social imaginary, European Journal of Sociology, vol 53, no 3, pp 287–312, doi: org/10.1017/ S000397561200015X Wessendorf, S. (2013) Commonplace diversity and the ‘ethos of mixing’: Perceptions of difference in a London neighbourhood, Identities, vol 20, no 4, pp 407–22, doi: org/10.1080/1070289X.2013.822374 Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. (2002) Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences, Global Networks, vol 2, no 4, pp 301–34.

74

CHAPTER FOUR

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions: perspectives from the South Tyrolean case Roberta Medda-Windischer

Introduction For many sub-national autonomous regions of Western countries, such as Catalonia, South Tyrol, Scotland, Flanders, Basque Country and Quebec, where traditional-historical groups (‘old minorities’) 1 live, migration is a stable and increasingly important reality. Some of these regions have attracted migrants for decades, while others have only recently experienced significant migration inflow. The coexistence of old minorities and new minority groups originating from migration (‘new minorities’)2 in sub-national territories adds complexities to the management of diversity and migration issues. It is acknowledged that the relation between ‘old’ communities and ‘new’ minority groups can be rather complicated. Interests and needs of historical groups can be in contrast with those of the migrant population. Moreover, the presence of new minorities can have an impact, not necessarily a negative one, on the relationship between old minorities and majority groups at state level and also between old minorities and the central state, as well as with policies enacted to protect the diversity of traditional groups and the way old minorities understand and define themselves.3 In the past, the subject of the relationship between old communities and new minorities has been largely neglected by scholars. With few exceptions (Medda-Windischer 2009), minority and multicultural issues have been studied separately from the point of view of historical groups or migrant communities, focusing on the relationship between each of these two categories and the dominant state, and highlighting differences between the claims of old minorities, who carry on nation-building projects, and migrant communities, who are expected to integrate into the dominant society (Kymlicka, 1995). When these two perspectives have been combined, it has often been to sustain the so-called ‘threat hypothesis’, namely the belief that historical groups frequently perceive large-scale migration as a danger 75

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

and harbour defensive and exclusionary attitudes towards migrants due to their ethnocentric understanding of identities or due to the fear that migrants will eventually integrate into the central state culture, further outnumbering the old minorities (Kymlicka, 2001, 278–9; Jeram and Adam, 2013, 2). In the last decade, scholars have started to look more deeply into the relationship between old and new minorities (Medda-Windischer, 2010). The ‘threat hypothesis’ has been opposed, since various ethno-national groups actually manifest inclusive approaches to migration. In fact, scholars argue that attitudes expressed by old minorities towards migrants follow similar dynamics to those expressed by majority groups at central state level (Carens, 1995; Kymlicka, 2001, 283). Tensions between old and new minorities are not inescapable. Scholars have argued that these tensions can be avoided if traditional groups are given extended competence over migration and integration issues, especially in terms of volume and origin of migration as well as in terms of integration (Kymlicka, 2001).4 Indeed, control over integration and migration, within the competences left out by the national and, though limited, supra-national levels, is considered crucial to the capacity of old minorities to protect and maintain their identity and culture (Carens, 1995, 20). Yet it has also been pointed out that the overlapping of national and local competences can bring disadvantages and incoherent policies, and even threaten the development of multicultural and inclusive policies (Loobuyck and Jacobs, 2009, 114; Bousetta, 2009, 97, 100–1). Alternatively, tensions can be reduced when old minorities develop policies to include the migrant population in their nation-building process (Zapata-Barrero, 2005, 8). In this regard, scholars have also set criteria and provided suggestions on how old communities should deal with migration and integration and how they can develop an inclusive approach to the migrant population. In particular, Medda-Windischer argues that international minority rights standards, primarily the UN Declaration on Minorities and the CoE Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, should be extended to all minority groups, including those stemming from migration (Medda-Windischer, 2010). Zapata-Barrero maintains that the approach to migration of ethno-national communities should observe liberal and democratic principles so as not to detract from the legitimacy of the ethno-national desire to manage the matter itself (Zapata-Barrero, 2009a, 17). Instead, Kymlicka seems to argue that limited deviations from liberal practices favour the development of open forms of identity and accommodation of migrant diversity (Kymlicka, 2001; Arel, 2001).

76

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

Further analyses, including more case studies and different methods,5 have shown the variety and complexity of relationships between old and new minorities. In some cases, the presence of old groups seems to hinder the process of inclusion of the migrant population, because when confronted with competing nation-building projects, migrants often remain less attached to the old communities in the hosting society (Banting and Soroka, 2012). At the same time, migration is an essential issue for old minorities, parties and their local governments for several reasons (Medda-Windischer and Popelier, 2016; Jeram et al, 2015; Carlá, 2015). On one hand, migration can be a tool to criticise the central state for failing to protect the interests of old minorities (Hepburn, 2009, 529). On the other, migration triggers important social, cultural and political consequences, forcing old minorities to re-conceptualise and re-define their self-understanding and identity, as well as to rethink the basis of their self-governments. In some cases, the presence of migrants can even encourage old minorities to switch from exclusive ethnic identities to multicultural attitudes in order to win their alliance (Piche, 2002). Despite the above, it is not possible to identify a general and homogeneous approach of old minorities to migration: attitudes change between regions and over time, following local, national and international dynamics. Furthermore, old minorities, like any social grouping, are not monolithic entities, but present a variety of specific aspects, and their attitude to migration is not an exception in this respect (Carens, 1995, 68). Various local factors that might explain the different approaches old minorities and their parties have developed to migration include concern about cultural reproduction linked to demographic trends, the condition of the local economy and labour market, party ideology, local party competition, the strength of extreme right parties, the degree of local party polarisation, the characteristics of nation-building narratives, old minorities’ experience with processes of modernisation, the type of national identity that characterises them, the importance traditional groups ascribe to specific cultural elements, such as language, in the definition of their identity, and the extent of sub-national autonomous government powers (Hepburn, 2011, 504; Jeram and Adam, 2013; Régis, 2012, 24; Shafir, 1995). Besides these local factors, variables at national and international levels also play a role. Ethno-national approaches to migration also develop as a reaction to national migration policies and as attempts to distinguish the culture and values of the old minority and to present them as more open and inclusive than those of the dominant majority. It is also necessary to consider how the relationship between the traditional community and the central nation-state evolves, as this may modify old minorities’ approach to migration and their definition of the ‘collectivity’ 77

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

and of who belongs to it (Gagnon, 2009; Zapata-Barrero, 2009b, 138). Moreover, the presence of migrant communities in territories inhabited by historical groups reframes and transforms traditional understandings of concepts such as membership, identity, cohesion and citizenship. From the perspective of the autonomous province of Bozen/Bolzano (South Tyrol or ‘the Province’) this contribution addresses the question whether it is possible to reconcile the claims of historical groups and of new communities originating from migration, and whether policies, which accommodate old and new minorities by reframing processes of inclusion and developing a more inclusive project of citizenship, help in the pursuit of a pluralist and tolerant society. South Tyrol is an Italian province characterised by German- and Ladin-speaking old communities and measures, such as elaborate political autonomy, for protecting their diversity. In addition to these historical groups, South Tyrol has also witnessed the arrival of many migrants from foreign countries in the last ten years (ASTAT, 2015b; MeddaWindischer and Girardi, 2011). The main political party of South Tyrol – the ruling party in the Province since the Second World War − the Südtiroler Volkspartei (SVP), or South Tyrolean People’s Party, has so far maintained a rather defensive approach – to the point of exclusion – towards migration and the diversity it brings, which stems directly from the key mission of the party, which is to protect and promote the rights of the German- and Ladin-speaking minorities in the Province (SVP, 1993). In this regard, the SVP’s political platform clearly states ‘The Südtiroler Volkspartei features among its major commitments the safeguarding of the rights of the autochthonous population and the protection of our land and its people from Überfremdung (literally over-foreignisation, that is, flooding with foreigners), through artificially increased and uncontrolled migration’ (SVP, 1993, 5).6 This is the concern of a minority who, during the Fascist period, had to endure harsh forms of ‘Italianisation’, and expresses the fear of becoming, demographically speaking, a numerical minority and/or suffering restrictions to the freedom of manifesting its identity. It is therefore quite clear that an analysis of the management of migration and the diversity of the new minorities originating from international migration to South Tyrol, cannot disregard the specific characteristics of the Province, which, besides the Italian linguistic group, also features two historical linguistic groups, that is, the German- and Ladin-speaking communities (MeddaWindischer and Carlá, 2015). Combining legal and political science approaches with the contextual analysis of the South Tyrolean case, the aim of this chapter is to fill existing gaps in academic scholarship by looking at three dimensions: 78

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

the relationship between old and new minorities, which are traditionally studied in isolation from each other; a special focus on the South Tyrolean case that so far has been mainly studied as a successful system for the protection of old minorities; and finally, a combination of legal and political approaches in the studies of migration and (super)diversity in sub-state territories that is rarely found in this specific research field. Relying primarily on the analysis of legal and policy documents and judgments of national and international courts as well previous literature and empirical studies on South Tyrol, I will discuss whether the policies aimed at protecting the historical traditional minorities in South Tyrol help or hinder the creation of a tolerant and pluralistic society, and enable a defensive approach so far adopted by the South Tyrol authorities towards migration and the cultural diversity of migrants and their families, to be overcome. In particular, I will focus on the competences of the South Tyrolean authorities and the measures introduced by them as regards integration and inclusion, as well as on several recent rulings, concerning the Province of Bozen/Bolzano, by the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. I conclude with observations on how to develop a defensible framework for the management of new and more complex forms of diversity at the subnational autonomous level in, but also beyond, the South Tyrolean case that reconciles unity and diversity and that overcomes, at the same time, the traditional ‘old–new’ minority dichotomy.

Competences and institutional measures: from discovery to defence through necessity The Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano (South Tyrol) is an autonomous province situated in Northern Italy on the border of Austria. It is one of the two provinces − the other being the Autonomous Province of Trento − that compose the Region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, which is itself an autonomous region.7 The population of approximately 500,000 inhabitants (corresponding to 0.5 per cent of Italy’s population) consists of two-thirds German speakers, less than one-third Italian speakers and some 20,000 Ladin speakers (ASTAT, 2012). Besides the German, Italian and Ladin groups, since the 1990s, a growing share of the population is composed of immigrants. According to the latest data, the foreign population resident in South Tyrol is approximately 46,000 persons, equivalent to almost 9 per cent of the total (ASTAT, 2015b). Almost one third of the foreign population in South Tyrol come from European Union countries, another third from other European countries, 17.5 per cent from Asia, 12.5 per cent from Africa (ASTAT, 2014a). The main nationalities are Albanian (12.2 per 79

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

cent), German (10.0 per cent) and Moroccan (7.9 per cent), followed by Pakistani, Romanian, and Macedonian (ASTAT, 2014a). The autonomous system operating in South Tyrol is the result of historical events dating back to the annexation of this territory – formerly part of the Habsburg Empire – by Italy in 1919, formalised by the peace treaty of St Germain at the end of the First World War. The following period saw the repression of the native German-speaking group – by far the majority in South Tyrol – by the Fascist totalitarian regime and, after the end of the Second World War, political struggles aimed at achieving a satisfying autonomous regime (Steininger, 2009). In 1948, an international agreement between the Italian and Austrian governments (the De Gasperi-Gruber Agreement, also called the Paris Agreement) provided for the creation of an autonomous local government under the Italian State, with special measures to protect the Germanspeaking population, implemented through a special First Autonomy Statute. Subsequently, in 1972, a Second Autonomy Statute was enacted, providing to the German- and Ladin-speaking population living in South Tyrol an advanced and multifarious protection system (Woelk et al, 2008). In the last decades, the autonomous management of the territory has not only guaranteed a peaceful cohabitation among linguistic groups living in South Tyrol, but has also achieved a florid economic situation characterised by high per-capita income and a low unemployment rate, especially if compared to the rest of Italy (ISTAT, 2014; ASTAT, 2014b). Regarding its autonomy, the specific features of the Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano can be summed up as follows: legislative and administrative autonomy, proportional representation – according to linguistic group – recognition of the linguistic equality of Italian and German, and last but not least, a specific financial framework for implementing these provisions (Woelk et al, 2008). It should be emphasised that the allocation of jobs in the public sector, and of financial resources in the key sectors of education, culture, social affairs and (albeit with broad exceptions) subsidised housing, is based on a proportional system – the so-called Proporz – according to the numerical size of the three linguistic groups historically present in South Tyrol: German, Italian and Ladin, as resulting from the latest census (Pallaoro and Colletti, 2013). The latest census, held in 2011, did not require the (EU and non-EU) foreign nationals living in the Province to declare their belonging to or affiliation with a specific linguistic group. Clearly, however, even residents with a migrant background, when they become Italian citizens, are required to produce a declaration that they belong to or, alternatively, using a less invasive term, affiliate with one of the three linguistic groups traditionally present in South Tyrol. This has the potential to create identity problems 80

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

for these ‘new citizens’, due to the fact that the system does not recognise multiple or composite identities, except to a limited extent.8 In terms of legislative powers in the field of immigration, according to the Italian Consolidated Act on Immigration (1998), the Italian State has jurisdiction over several migration-related aspects regarding such matters as the definition of quota-based immigration, entry requirements, residence, expulsion, citizenship, asylum and refugee status,9 as well as bilateral agreements for readmission to the country of origin. With regard to the quota system, in particular, the criteria and the number of migrants allowed into the country are established each year, according to the economic needs and demands expressed locally, but the State continues to have exclusive decision-making powers because the regions and autonomous provinces, including the Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano, can only express non-binding opinions on these matters. Under Italian law, the competences are apportioned among the various tiers of government, with the regional and autonomous provincial governments being granted certain powers in crucial areas for migrants and for the management of their cultural, linguistic and/or religious diversity. In particular, they are responsible for planning and coordinating the policies and measures for achieving the social, cultural and economic inclusion of migrants in various fields, as well as with regard to health, education, housing, civic participation and anti-discrimination policies. Among the above-mentioned fields, education is clearly a critical area for minorities (old and new), as an important tool for safeguarding and promoting culture and the individual and collective identity. Like many aspects of public life in South Tyrol, the educational system is organised along linguistic lines: teaching at school is in either German or Italian, but it is mandatory to learn the other language as well. In this system, migrants are free to choose whether to enrol their children in German or Italian language schools (Bauer and Medda-Windischer, 2008; Alber, 2012; Wisthaler, 2013). As regards civic and political participation, some South Tyrol cities, such as Bozen/Bolzano and Meran/Merano – the capital of the Province and the second largest city by population, respectively – have set up immigrant councils for foreign citizens in their municipal parliaments. These bodies only have advisory powers and the municipal parliaments are under no obligation to consult them, not even with regard to issues specifically affecting migration and/or foreign nationals. They are therefore to all intents and purposes powerless and ineffectual, a sort of purely formal entity. Despite the legislative competences enjoyed by the Province of Bozen/ Bolzano in a number of areas that have a direct or indirect impact on integration, it failed to avail itself of them for a long time, as a result of 81

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

which South Tyrol turned out to be one of the last Italian Regions/ Provinces to adopt a specific law on migrants’ integration. Only in the autumn of 2011 – with much controversy, due to the strong opposition of several political parties against any concessions on immigration, but also due to criticism by pro-migration organisations because of the lack of dialogue or a participatory approach in the formulation of the bill – was a bill on integration finally taken up by the Provincial Parliament and passed, after several sessions, under the title of ‘Law on the Integration of Foreign Citizens’ (Provincial Law on Integration, 2011). The reluctance on the part of the Provincial Government and Parliament to approve a comprehensive law on the issue of immigration and integration in South Tyrol could be due not only to the presence, in the Provincial Parliament, of right-wing parties such as Freiheitlichen, Süd-Tiroler Freiheit, Unitalia and Lega Nord (the Northern League), which, like similar parties in other Italian regions or European countries, are generally opposed to immigration, but also to a specific feature of South Tyrol, the ‘mirror effect’,10 that is, the fear of opening up a Pandora’s box of all the unresolved divisive issues underlying the relationship between the main German- and Italian-speaking linguistic groups. Finally, as mentioned above, in the autumn of 2011 the Provincial Law on Integration was adopted, providing legal grounds as well as operational guidelines for the Immigration Coordination Office, and also creating an Anti-Discrimination Centre (Provincial Law on Integration, 2011, art 5) and a Provincial Immigrant Council (Provincial Law 2011, art.6). In the Provincial Law ‘integration’ is understood as ‘a process of mutual exchange and dialogue’ (Provincial Law on Integration, 2011, art.6),11 in line both with the European Council’s Hague Programme (European Council 2004), in which integration is defined as ‘a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of EU countries’,12 and with the Italian Consolidated Act on Immigration that defines integration as a ‘process aimed at promoting the cohabitation of national citizens and foreign nationals, in accordance with the values set out in the Constitution, with the mutual commitment to take part in the economic, social and cultural life of society’ (Consolidated Act on Immigration, art 4 bis).13 Furthermore, it should be highlighted that the Provincial Law on Integration includes, among the primary goals of the Province, ‘the mutual recognition and valorisation of cultural, religious and linguistic identities’ (Provincial Law on Integration, 2011, art 2).14 A few months after the Provincial Law on Integration was adopted, the Italian government filed an application with the Constitutional Court against several articles of the Provincial Law, concerning the assignment 82

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

of competences and the introduction of criteria for entitlement to certain welfare benefits (President of the Council of Ministers, 2012). About a year later, the Constitutional Court upheld all the observations raised by the Italian government and declared the non-constitutional nature of the relevant provisions (Italian Constitutional Court, 2013). In particular, the Court found that certain requirements of the Provincial Law imposed only on non-EU foreign nationals for entitlement to certain economic benefits ‘violate the principles of reasonableness and equality’ under article 3 of the Italian Constitution; these requirements are, in more detail, at least five years of continuous residence on a stable basis in the Province of Bozen/Bolzano for entitlement to some specific welfare benefits, five years of continuous residence for entitlement to benefits relating to attendance of schools located outside the Province of Bozen/Bolzano and of university, and one year of continuous residence for entitlement to subsidies for learning foreign languages (Italian Constitutional Court, 2013, 3.2, 6.2, 7.2).15 In addition to the above, another example of the defensive approach adopted by the Province of Bozen/Bolzano towards third-country nationals, even if long-term residents, is the recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the case of Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others regarding housing benefits (ECJ, 2012). The ECJ issued its ruling in 2012, in the wake of the recent decisions by the Constitutional Court on the subject of welfare benefit restrictions applying to resident foreign nationals in various Italian regions (ECJ, 2012). The ECJ judgment concerned the case of an Albanian national, Mr Kamberaj, resident in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano since 1994 and holder of a residence permit for an indefinite period, who had received the housing benefit in the period 1998–2008 (Provincial Law on Public Housing Benefits, 1998). The benefit is defined by the relevant provincial law as a contribution to the payment of rent for low-income tenants and is allocated to EU citizens − whether Italian or not − and third-country nationals or stateless persons, provided they have resided lawfully and continuously in the province for at least five years and − unlike in the case of Italian and EU applicants − have worked there for at least three years. The dispute concerning Mr Kamberaj arose following the decision, by the Provincial Government in 2009, to change the criteria and multipliers for determining the allocation of the funds for the housing benefit, according to whether the application was made by EU or third-country nationals, as a result of which the funds allocated for the latter group were used up before those for the former (Autonomous Province of Bolzano, 2009a).

83

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

With its judgment of 24 April 2012 (ECJ, 2012), the ECJ ruled that a national or regional law, which − with regard to the distribution of the funds allocated for housing benefits − provides for different treatment for third-country nationals, compared to that accorded to nationals residing in the same Member State, is in breach of EU law, in so far as such a benefit (i) falls within one of the categories requiring equal treatment, as laid down in Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (EU, 2003) and (ii) constitutes a core benefit, within the meaning of the said Directive, with respect to which it is for the national court to decide. According to the ECJ, a third-country national who has acquired the status of long-term resident in a Member State is in a comparable situation, regarding the housing benefit, to that of a citizen of the Union (whether Italian or not) with the same economic need. The ECJ observed that the effect of applying different multipliers is to disadvantage the category of third-country nationals, since the budget available to satisfy their demands for housing benefits is smaller than that for Union citizens (whether Italian or not) and thus likely to be used up more quickly than theirs (ECJ, 2012, 70–5). The above-mentioned cases examined by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice are emblematic for understanding the South Tyrol authorities’ approach to the issue of immigration: several welfare benefits have in fact been extended under provincial law to include thirdcountry (that is, non-EU) nationals, but only under certain conditions (at least one or five years of residence, unlike in the case of other applicants, whether Italian or EU citizens) or not at all. Regarding these issues, the national and EU Courts have laid down clear interpretation criteria: the benefits which ‘enable individuals to meet their basic needs such as food, accommodation and health’ (ECJ, 2012, 91), and which ‘ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources’ (ECJ, 2012, 92), cannot reasonably be related to the length of residence of the applicant, in order to avoid ‘further unreasonable discrimination’ (Italian Constitutional Court, 2013, 3.2).16 In the light of the above, the approach that seems to emerge from the legislative measures approved by the South Tyrol authorities regarding the issues of immigration and integration cannot yet be defined as post-ethnic or intercultural. Although other views, from very open to xenophobic approaches, are expressed in this field by various social and political actors in South Tyrol, such as the Green party and the Freihetlichen (Carlá, 2015), the dominant approach of the South Tyrolean authorities is best represented by the main ruling party – the SVP – in power since the Second World

84

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

War in coalition with the Italian party, PD (Democratic Party), with large percentage of votes though recently in slight decline (Carlá, 2016). The currently dominant orientation of the South Tyrolean authorities can be described as defensive, an attitude that privileges assisting migrants in their countries of origin, as clearly stated in the political platform of the SVP (SVP, 1993, 5), and that allows migrants to enjoy certain services and benefits, but only on a conditional and limited basis, without eroding or impairing the welfare state in any way. Thus foreign nationals resident in the Province of Bolzano are to be kept at a suitable distance, despite the fact that they contribute, through their work, to the well-being of the province where they have chosen to live. Migrants are in fact an absolute necessity for the local economy, due to the ageing of the local population (ASTAT, 2015a) and the difficulties in finding low-skilled workers among local population especially in the hospitality and agricultural sectors (Autonomous Province of Bolzano, 2016). This defensive approach to migration, evidenced by the foregoing Provincial Law and the restrictions imposed on foreign nationals with regard to certain welfare benefits, as publicly expressed by many parties in South Tyrol, cannot, however, be entirely attributed to the legitimate concern of protecting the German and Ladin linguistic minorities, but as mentioned previously, it is also the result of the more general growth of the far-right parties and their anti-immigration campaigns at national and local elections in many European counties and regions, including South Tyrol.17 The South Tyrolean authorities have clearly overcome the discovery phase of migration and now acknowledges the necessity of migration flows. Yet when addressing cultural identity issues and policies which go beyond the more practical and immediate needs of migrants, the approach becomes a rather defensive one, even bordering on exclusion: multiple or composite identities are accepted reluctantly and the same reluctance applies to the granting of equal treatment in the field of social and political rights as well as to the deployment of initiatives aimed at involving the communities of foreign nationals and migrants in decision-making processes.

Residence documents and language tests: towards greater openness? Despite the rather timid and, at least until the adoption of the Provincial Law on Integration, half-hearted and unconvincing signals with regard to migration and inclusion, the actual track record with regard to migrants and their families is considered by various sources to be largely very positive. Recent surveys conducted in South Tyrol among foreign nationals from 85

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

low-income countries show that they generally have good relations with the local communities, especially in terms of participation in social life, use of the Italian language (much more than German), widespread interest in local politics and the local media, and contacts with the autochthonous groups, especially the Italian-speaking group (Medda-Windischer et al, 2011; Lainati and Saltarelli, 2007). These results have been confirmed by a number of nationwide studies carried out by the Consiglio Nazionale dell’Economia e del Lavoro (CNEL) (the National Council for Economics and Labour) on the inclusion of migrants in various Italian provinces, according to which the Province of Bozen/Bolzano is at the forefront for integration in Italy today, based on a complex set of measurements and ratios that include suitable housing, employment, family reunification and crime rates (CNEL, 2010). Several initiatives implemented by the South Tyrol authorities highlight that the province is moving towards a greater degree of openness as regards the cultural, language and religious diversity of migrants and their families. This new attitude was showcased in the last-term investiture speech by the former President of the Province of Bozen/Bolzano, Luis Durnwalder. The speech contains some useful indications on the issue of diversity and the meaning of integration policies: ‘integration should not mean assimilation. Migrants will not, and should not, become Tyroleans. Everyone must keep and indeed cultivate their different identities, respecting others and observing the law’ (Durnwalder, 2008). This approach seems to have inspired certain provisions of the Provincial Law on Integration, in particular those specifically addressing diversity: ‘The Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano…fosters the mutual recognition and valorisation of the different cultural, religious and language identities, inspired by the principles of equality and religious freedom’ (Provincial Law on Integration, 2011, art 2).18 Along the same lines is the Protocol of Understanding signed within the framework of the Euroregion Tyrol – South Tyrol – Trentino on crossborder collaboration, exchanging good practices and the implementation of common actions on intercultural policies, which however, by its very nature, is left to the discretion and good political will of the contracting parties (EVTZ/GECT, 2011).19 The most significant sign of change by the South Tyrol authorities, however, could emerge from an amendment introduced by the Provincial Government in the recent nationwide legislation on residence documents. This amendment provides for the inclusion, albeit limited to South Tyrol, of a non-mandatory German language test for obtaining a residence permit (Presidential Decree, 2011, arts 6(2) and 12(2); Medda-Windischer, 2013). Some foreign migrants may indeed prefer a German language test to the 86

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

other credit-earning systems, particularly if they live or work in Germanspeaking areas, such as the hotel industry in the mountains (Autonomous Province of Bolzano, 2009b). The request to introduce a German language test as an optional, additional element for obtaining a residence permit can be viewed in the broader context of the relationship (or smouldering tensions) between the nation-state – Italy – and the German language community, and hence the need to uphold a status or even a sense of linguistic pride. Another interpretation of this amendment could be the justification underlying the amendment proposal, namely, the principle of language equality between Italian and German in the Province of Bozen/ Bolzano. However, the formal equal status of the two languages does not automatically mean that foreign residents in the Province all speak both languages. According to a recent survey, only 15.1 per cent of all foreign interviewees from EU and non-EU countries declared that they were proficient in German, compared to 58.7 per cent who declared that they were proficient in Italian (Medda-Windischer et al, 2011, 77). Furthermore, recent studies have identified the cause of a certain distance between foreign nationals and the members of the Germanspeaking community, precisely in this limited knowledge of German by foreign residents (Medda-Windischer et al, 2011). It emerges from these studies, in fact, that the principal factor hindering the creation of contacts between foreign nationals and the German-speaking community in South Tyrol is primarily failure to understand the language. This is also indicated by foreign nationals who have been living in South Tyrol for a relatively long period of time (Medda-Windischer et al, 2011, 61). On the other hand, with regard to contacts between foreign nationals and members of the Italian-speaking community, language does not pose any particular problem. The causes for the lack of contact between these groups are, first and foremost, the lack of opportunities for mixing, and second, different habits, especially in terms of leisure activities (MeddaWindischer et al, 2011). Moreover, from answers to the question about the level of identification of foreign nationals with the historical ethnolinguistic groups of South Tyrol, it is interesting to note that over half the interviewees feel closer to the Italian language group (53.9 per cent), while only 11.4 per cent tend to identify primarily with the German language group (Medda-Windischer et al, 2011). This trend has also been confirmed by interviewees living in areas with a German language majority, most of whom feel closer to the Italian language group (Medda-Windischer et al, 2011, 66). It is therefore evident that this proximity between the foreign residents in South Tyrol and the Italian-speaking community, with regard to knowledge 87

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

of the language and sense of identification, could be an unexpected factor in the relationship between the historical linguistic groups in South Tyrol. This concern was well expressed by the Secretary of the SVP, Richard Theiner, when he declared: ‘Let’s not leave migrants to the Italians’ (Alto Adige, 2010). From this point of view, although inclusion of German alongside the mandatory Italian language test is not the result of a genuinely open and sincere dialogue between the old groups and the new communities living in South Tyrol, it may nevertheless represent a first (timid) step in the direction of bringing these groups closer and narrowing the current gap between migrants and the linguistic groups historically present in South Tyrol (the old minorities), as a foundation on which to build social peace and cohesion.

Conclusion The relationship between the traditional historical communities − old minorities − and those originating from migration − new minorities − can be very complex and hampered by tension (Medda-Windischer, 2009; Medda-Windischer, 2011). Large-scale immigration has typically been seen as a threat to historical minorities because migrants have often shown a tendency to integrate into the dominant culture, which usually offers greater opportunities for social mobility and economic improvement. When migrants settle in a territory that is traditionally inhabited by historical minorities and integrate into the larger group at the national level, sometimes encouraged by the central government, the national minority may fear being gradually outnumbered and therefore to become powerless in political life. Nevertheless, the old and new minorities do not necessarily inherently find themselves in a state of permanent conflict, as many might think. There are numerous historical minorities, in fact, that are in favour of the arrival of migrants and allow them to maintain and express their identity, while at the same time encouraging forms of inclusion into the traditional historical minority. An emblematic example in this respect is Quebec, which has in fact adopted a proactive policy towards immigration, in conjunction with some strong measures aimed at protecting and promoting the francophone community (Kymlicka, 2001). In the case of South Tyrol the policies and measures that should be introduced to open up the system towards a more inclusive framework on migration and integration include, on one hand, further extension of competences regarding integration and migration planning, to the extent that the latter is allowed by the system of the division of competences 88

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

between the central and the regional/provincial governments. On the other, they include a serious struggle against stereotypes and use of foreigners and migrants as scapegoats, bringing the latter closer to the historical communities of South Tyrol, especially the German-speaking community, through linguistic policies and intercultural exchange (MeddaWindischer and Carlá, 2013).20 Regarding the provincial decentralisation of new competences in the fields of integration and migration planning, in particular through effective participatory methods, binding for decision-making processes, this would enable harmonisation of national migration control policies with the linguistic, cultural and institutional peculiarities of South Tyrol, ensuring at the same time that extension of these competences does not lead to the introduction of harsher criteria than those established at the national level (Medda-Windischer and Carlá, 2013). It is quite clear that even the mere opening of negotiations on this matter would be a difficult endeavour, as shown by the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court against the Province of Bozen/Bolzano, examined in the foregoing pages, in which the exclusive competence of the State in planning migration quotas was further re-iterated. With reference to the relations between migrants and the historical linguistic groups of South Tyrol, further incentives should be foreseen for learning and using the local languages, German in particular, also through campaigns to help people better understand the advantages this entails, especially in terms of social mobility and earning capacity. Moreover, policies for promoting the learning of languages should provide for adequate measures aimed at transforming the local languages into a ‘real-life experience’ (that is, the ‘languages of everyday life’) (MeddaWindischer and Carlá, 2013). The above measures would be however insufficient per se unless accompanied by initiatives focusing on how the majority population perceives migrants, on the issue of multiple and composite identities and on the sense of belonging to South Tyrol society. Actions and campaigns aimed at the entire population are needed to raise awareness about the issue of immigration, underlining the positive role and contribution of migrants and persons with a migration background as an integral part of society, and not as ‘foreign competitors’ who subtract local resources and are a burden for society. Everybody should come to perceive the need to respect and valorise diversity as a source of enrichment for the community as a whole (Medda-Windischer and Carlá, 2013). Despite the ‘legal institutionalisation of ethnicity’ (Marko, 2008, 386), through what Marko defines as the ‘ethnic Midas effect’ (Marko, 2008, 388) – according to which the legal recognition of ethnicity cements 89

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

ethnic separation in the public sphere, but also spreads out and penetrates certain aspects of the private sphere – as well as the defensive approach seen above towards diversity originating from immigration, in South Tyrol ‘there is ongoing change in attitudes and basic values of civil society that sees ethnic difference not only as a separate asset worthy of protection but cultural diversity as ‘mutual enrichment’ and as ‘added value’ and competitive advantage in an emerging European market of regions’ (Marko, 2008, 387–8).21 A number of sociological studies (albeit not recent), also indicate how the ‘ethnic gap’ is narrowing in South Tyrol, gradually being replaced by a common identification with the territory shared by the different groups, especially among the younger and middle generations (Marko, 2008, 387–8).22 This common territorial identification in South Tyrol may be nurtured by a common moral and emotional identification with a specific area, sharing key constituent principles and a collective concept of self: in the mainstream communities, this concept of identification could be stretched to include new minorities originating from migration. In a nation organised as a social community, whose members consider themselves a nation (Renan’s ‘daily plebiscite’) (Renan, 1882), there is no need for a shared language or religion, nor indeed are they sufficient; it is the sentiment of the members of a nation that define it as such, and this sentiment can only spring from one or all of these traits, or from something totally different, such as a common territory. In other words, the consciousness of belonging to a common territory and a common political organisation, and sharing a common destiny with the rest of the society, is at the core of the common territorial identity, instead of culture or other criteria based on descent. Common territorial identification, like that adopted in Quebec or Catalonia (Medda-Windischer and Carlá, 2015), could bring together and unite all those who live in South Tyrol, regardless of their language and/or ethnic background, and represents a form of post-ethnic minority pro-sovereignty, in which the nation is viewed as the result of progressive creation by the groups, through forms of free and spontaneous union, which entail voluntary acceptance of common principles, a common sense of belonging, loyalty to one’s adopted community and concomitant feelings of mutual trust among the individuals who belong to this political organisation and live in the same territory. This approach is reflected in the (former) President of South Tyrol Luis Durnwalder’s speech encouraging ‘a tolerant society, but which does not make the mistake of confusing tolerance with giving up one’s identity’ and concluding: ‘…in short, we must become a single society’ (Durnwalder, 2010).23

90

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

The current process to reform the Autonomy Statute of the Province of Bozen/Bolzano (Provincial Law on Autonomy Convention, 2015), called for by many parties as a necessary passage for adapting this important legal instrument to present and future challenges (Palermo, 2012; SVP, 2011), is an opportunity to introduce an interlocutor who can no longer be ignored into the political and public debate, namely the ‘new citizens’ of South Tyrol, foreign citizens and citizens with migration background. These individuals may not yet have ‘historical’ ties with the territory, but have nonetheless chosen South Tyrol as the centre of their existence, or as in the case of the second or third generations, were born and grew up there and consequently see themselves as part of it. South Tyrol politics and society must necessarily open up a dialogue with them to bridge the gap and modify the defensive approach, otherwise this could eventually lead to a sense of alienation and disaffection not conducive to social cohesion: social cohesion that through openness to dialogue and mutual settlement, with many difficulties and not always in a straightforward manner, South Tyrolean society has managed to maintain between the historical linguistic groups, despite their cultural differences and divisive history. Fair management of migration and cohabitation of culturally different groups, together with debate on identity and sense of belonging, are challenging and intricate matters, especially in territories inhabited by historical-traditional minorities, like South Tyrol. As seen above, the relation between historical groups and new minority groups originating from migration is complex, sparking various normative and empirical questions. The analysis of the South Tyrol case confirms that it is not possible to speak of a fixed and monolithic approach of old minorities to migration. Just as there are differences between and within nation-states (between ‘migrant-friendly’ and ‘migrant-hostile’ countries and between national parties promoting inclusive policies and those sustaining restrictive measures), old minorities are differentiated between and within themselves. Nor is it possible to analyse the issue as a two-actor game between old and new minorities: the game interacts with relations between old minority and central state, especially with regard to issues of political competence on migration matters; it also interacts with the central state’s approach to migration. Increasing interactions and overlap between the needs and concerns of old and new minorities, and between policies to include the migrant population and to protect old communities, have been central themes of this contribution. Understanding how old minorities deal with the arrival of new migrant communities offers key insights for building a genuinely inclusive society respectful of diversity, where cultural differences and

91

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

people’s cultural background are valorised and not seen as challenging social stability. The ultimate aim in contemporary societies, whether inhabited or not by old and new minorities, where superdiversity is the norm rather than the exception, is to create a plural and tolerant society in which different communities interact with each other in a spirit of equality and openness. The process, however, is onerous for all parties involved. New minorities and individuals with migration backgrounds must learn to negotiate, often in an unfamiliar or even hostile environment, where minority status makes them vulnerable to marginalisation and segregation. Old minorities, having negotiated protection of their cultural and linguistic characteristics with the central state and the majority, must now cope with enhanced diversity in their schools, workplaces, housing, public spaces and neighbourhoods, displaying tolerance and broadmindedness. This is not easy to achieve and has its own problems: some groups may not be open and experimental and others may jealously guard their inherited identities. In the end, sincere willingness for continuous interaction, mutual adjustment and accommodation on all sides lies at the heart of any successful model. Acknowledgements The author thanks the Department of Innovation, Research and University of the Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano for covering the Open Access publication costs. Notes 1 In this contribution, the terms ‘old minorities’ or ‘traditional-historical minorities’ are used to refer to communities whose members have a language, culture and/or religion distinct from that of the rest of the population, and who became minorities as a consequence of a re-drawing of international borders in which their area changed from the sovereignty of one country to another or who for various reasons did not achieve statehood of their own but came to be part of a larger country or several countries (Medda-Windischer, 2010; Harff and Gurr, 2004). 2 With the term ‘new minorities’ we refer to groups formed by the decision of individuals and families to leave their original homeland and emigrate to another country, generally for economic and sometimes also for political reasons. Thus they consist of migrants and refugees and their descendants who live, on a more than transitional basis, in a country different from that of their origin (Medda-Windischer, 2010). 3 For a detailed account of the theoretical concepts related to old, established, traditional groups and new minorities originating from most recent migration, see Medda-Windischer, 2009. 92

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions 4

5

6 7

8

9

Extending competence over migration to old minorities so that they can maintain their identity raises the vexing but still unresolved question of whether minority rights have a collective or individual dimension. For the former, the minority group itself is the beneficiary of the protection to be afforded, while for the latter, the beneficiary is individual members of the group. A third position uses the formula of individual rights ‘collectively exercised’ and represents a via media between the rights of individuals and full collective rights. In the current debate on the individual or collective dimension of minority rights, a pragmatic position holds that as human experience is such that human beings possess both individual and social dimensions, there is no dichotomy between individual or collective dimension and therefore no need to choose. As Marko puts it: ‘These two forms of rights not only can, but even must be used cumulatively when organising equality on the basis of difference’ (Marko, 1997, 87). Ultimately, the real issue is whether the groups that human beings form are free and whether members of those groups are able to live in dignity, including with regard to maintenance and development of their identity. The most studied cases are Quebec, Belgium and its territorial entities, Catalonia and Basque Countries in Spain and Scotland. Translation of the quote from German by the author. The competences of the Region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol are very limited: the exclusive competence of the Region is exerted only in three out of 58 subject areas as most competences are assigned to either the Provinces of Bolzano/Bozen and Trento, or the Italian central state. Due to the limited competences assigned to the Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol region, its abrogation and the consequent upgrading of the Autonomous Provinces of Bolzano/Bozen and of Trento into autonomous regions is regularly discussed at the political level (Alber and Zwilling, 2014). The system includes the possibility of selecting ‘other’, but only for statistical purposes. To exercise the rights and interests that the law associates with the fact of belonging to a group (for example, taking part in public competitions, applying for welfare benefits), affiliation with one of the three recognised groups is compulsory. As of asylum and refugee status, the competences of the EU member states are guided by general principles enshrined in various EU legal instruments, such as the Directive 2013/32/EU of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing integrational protection and the Dublin Regulation III 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member

93

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

State responsible for examining an application for international protection. 10 It is acknowledged that the response of a society to immigration is intimately linked to its conception of itself (Carens, 1995). 11 Translation by author. 12 The European Council also proposes a series of common basic principles (CBP) for integration, including the fundamental values of the EU, fundamental human rights, frequent interaction and dialogue between members of society, non-discrimination policies (European Council, 2005, 1.5). 13 Translation by author. 14 Author’s translation. 15 Author’s translation. 16 Author’s translation. 17 Among the many examples, see the recent electoral results for the European Parliament obtained in France and the UK. 18 Author’s translation. 19 This agreement is the result of the network activities conducted in the framework of the Interreg Italy/Austria-funded Migralp project led by Eurac, www.eurac.edu/en/research/autonomies/minrig/projects/ Pages/projectdetails.aspx?pid=6355. 20 This work, elaborated by Eurac, in collaboration with NGOs, social workers and decision makers, contains a series of recommendations for improving the cohabitation of the different groups present in South Tyrol, focusing in particular on communities resulting from international migratory movements. 21 Note that the Treaty of Lisbon includes an ‘additional’ citizenship instead of the ‘complementary’ citizenship of the Maastricht Treaty (art 8). An additional citizenship is a true dual citizenship so that EU citizens will be both national and EU citizens. 22 Marko quotes a study by S Böckler, What can we learn from others? The case of South Tyrol, unpublished paper, 2000; see also Manifesto Alto Adige 2019 written by intellectuals from the various groups historically present in South Tyrol to overcome barriers between the three linguistic groups, http://manifesto2019.wordpress.com/manifesto 23 Author’s translation. References Alber, E. (2012) South Tyrol’s education system: Plurilingual answers for monolinguistic spheres?, Journal of Studies on European Integration and Federalism, vol 363, pp 399–415.

94

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

Alber, E. and Zwilling, C. (2014) Global autonomy arrangements: The case of South Tyrol. Continuity and change in South Tyrol’s ethnic governance, in S. Levente, S. Constantin, A. Osipov and I.G. Székely (eds) Autonomy arrangements around the world: A collection of well and lesser known cases, Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities. Alto Adige (2010) Theiner: non lasciamo gli immigrati agli italiani, 28 September, http://altoadige.gelocal.it/bolzano/cronaca/2010/09/28/ news/theiner-non-lasciamo-gli-immigrati-agli-italiani-1.4149633 Arel, D. (2001) Political stability in multinational democracies: Comparing language dynamics in Brussels, Montreal and Barcelona, in A. Gagnon and J. Tully (eds) Multinational Democracies, New York: Cambridge University Press. ASTAT (Istituto Provinciale di Statistica) (2012) Censimento della popolazione - 2011, AstatInfo 38, 6, Bolzano, pp 1–14 ASTAT (Istituto Provinciale di Statistica) (2014a) Popolazione straniera residente – 2013, AstatInfo 45, Bolzano, pp 1–13. ASTAT (Istituto Provinciale di Statistica) (2014b) Occupazione – 3 trimestre 2014, AstatInfo 64, Bolzano, pp 1–2. ASTAT (Istituto Provinciale di Statistica) (2015a) Manuale demografico della provincia di Bolzano, AstatInfo 01, Bolzano, pp 1–4. ASTAT (Istituto Provinciale di Statistica) (2015b) Popolazione straniera residente – 2014, AstatInfo 29, Bolzano, pp 1–12. Autonomous Province of Bolzano (2009a) Delibera della Giunta provinciale, no 1885, 20 July, Bolzano. Autonomous Province of Bolzano (2009b) Competenze linguistiche sul mercato del lavoro in Alto Adige, Osservatorio del mercato del lavoro, Bolzano, pp 1–81. Autonomous Province of Bolzano (2016) Rapporto sul mercato del lavoro in provincia di Bolzano, 2016/1, Bolzano. Banting, K. and Soroka, S. (2012) Minority nationalism and immigrant integration in Canada, Nations and Nationalism, vol 18, no 1, pp 156–176. Bauer, S. and Medda-Windischer, R. (2008) The educational system in South Tyrol, in J Woelk, F Palermo, J Marko (eds) Tolerance through law: Self-governance and group rights in South Tyrol, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp 235–58. Böckler, S. (2000) What can we learn from others? The case of South Tyrol, unpublished paper. Bousetta, H. (2009) Multinational federalism and immigrant multiculturalism in Brussels, in R. Zapata-Barrero (ed), Immigration and self-government of minority nations, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang SA.

95

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Carens, J.H. (1995) Is Quebec nationalism just?, Montreal/Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press. Carlà, A. (2015) Tensions and challenges between new and old minorities: Political party discourses on migration in South Tyrol, in R. MeddaWindischer and A. Carlá (eds) Migration in autonomous territories: The case of South Tyrol and Catalonia, Leiden/Boston: Koninklijke Brill. Carlà, A. (2016) How secessionist parties approach migration: South Tyrolean nationalism and the weight of history, in R. Medda-Windischer and P. Popelier (eds) Pro-independence movements and migration: Discourse, policy and practice, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. CNEL (Consiglio Nazionale dell’Economia e del Lavoro) (2010) Indici di integrazione degli immigrati in Italia. Il potenziale di integrazione nei territori italiani Analisi dell’occupazione e della criminalità per collettività, VII Rapporto, Rome, cnel.it/18?tag_area_tematica=34 Consolidated Act on Immigration (1998) Testo Unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero, Legislative Decree no 286, 25 July. Durnwalder, L. (2008) Dichiarazioni programmatiche del presidente della Provincia designato Luis Durnwalder al Consiglio della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, provincia.bz.it/aprov/giunta-provinciale/download/ RegierungserklaerungIT.pdf Durnwalder, L. (2010) Relazione del Presidente Durnwalder al bilancio provinciale 2011, Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Bolzano. ECJ (European Court of Justice) (2012) Servet Kamberaj v. Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano and Others, 24 April, Judgment C-571/10. EU (European Union) (2003) Directive 2003/109/EC, concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, 25 November. European Commission (2005) Common Agenda for Integration - Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union, COM(2005) 389 final, 1 September, CBP 1. European Council (2005) The Hague Programme, 24 September, C 236. EVTZ/GECT (2011) Europaregio Tirol-Südtirol-Trentino/Euregio Tirolo-Alto Adige-Trentino, Agenda di impegni per il confronto e la cooperazione transfrontaliera su politiche interculturali/Absichtserklärung zum Erfahrungsaustausch und zur Zusammenarbeit im Rahmen eines grenübergreifenden interkulturellen Dialogs, Bozen/Bolzano, www.europaregion.info/it/attualita/news. asp?news_action=4&news_article_id=413751 Gagnon, A. (2009) Immigration in a multinational context. from laissezfaire to an institutional framework in Quebec, in R. Zapata-Barrero (ed) Immigration and self-government of minority nations, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang SA. 96

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

Harff, B. and Gurr, T.R. (2004) Ethnic conflict in world politics, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hepburn, E. (2009) Regionalist party mobilisation on immigration, West European Politics, vol 32, no 3, pp 514–535. Hepburn, E. (2011) ‘Citizens of the region’: Party conceptions of regional citizenship and immigrant integration, European Journal of Political Research, vol 50, no 4, pp 504–529. ISTAT (Istituto nazionale di statistica) (2014) Noi Italia, Pil pro capite per regione, Roma: Istituto nazionale di statistica. Italian Constitutional Court (2011) Judgment no 40, 7 February. Italian Constitutional Court (2013) Judgment no 2, 14 January. Jeram, S. and Adam, I. (2013) Immigration in multinational settings: The Basque country and Flanders in comparative perspective, paper presented at the ASN World Convention, Columbia University, 18–20 April. Jeram, S., van der Zwet, A. and Wisthaler, V. (2015) Friends or foes? Migrants and sub-state nationalists in Europe, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 42, no 8. Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2001) Politics in the vernacular, nationalism, multiculturalism, and citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lainati, C. and Saltarelli, S. (eds) (2007) Osservatorio Provinciale sulle Immigrazioni della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano. Migrazioni in Alto Adige/ Südtirol, Bolzano/Bozen: Praxis. Loobuyck, P. and Jacobs, D. (2009) Self-government, immigration and integration in Flanders: Political opportunities, tensions and challenges, in R. Zapata-Barrero (ed) Immigration and self-government of minority nations, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang SA. Marko, J. (1997) Equality and difference: Political and legal aspects of ethnic group relations, in F. Matscher (ed) Vienna international encounter on some current issues regarding the situation of national minorities, Kehl/ Strasbourg/Arlington, NP Engel Verlag, pp 67–97. Marko, J. (2008) Is there a ‘model’ of conflict resolution to be exported?, in J. Woelk, F. Palermo and J. Marko (eds) Tolerance through law: Selfgovernance and group rights in South Tyrol, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp 371–88. Medda-Windischer, R. (2009) Old and new minorities: Reconciling diversity and cohesion, Baden-Baden: Nomos. Medda-Windischer, R. (2010) Changing paradigms in the traditional dichotomy of old and new minorities, in K. Henrard (ed) Double standards pertaining to minority protection, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 97

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Medda-Windischer, R. (2011) Diritti umani e tutela delle minoranze quali fattori d’integrazione per le nuove minoranze, in R. MeddaWindischer, G. Hetfleisch and M. Meyer (eds) La migrazione in Alto Adige e Tirolo: analisi e prospettive multidisciplinari, Bolzano/Bozen: Eurac Research, pp 377–400. Medda-Windischer, R. (2013) Aggiornamento normativo nazionale, in Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Immigrazione e Integrazione in Provincia di Bolzano, Bolzano/Bozen: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano. Medda-Windischer, R. and Girardi, R. (eds) (2011) Rapporto annuale sull’immigrazione in Alto Adige 2010, Bolzano/Bozen: Eurac Research. Medda-Windischer, R. and Carlá, A. (2013) Migrazione e convivenza in Alto Adige. Raccomandazioni per una cittadinanza civica nella provincia di Bolzano, Bolzano/Bozen: Eurac, Research, eurac.edu/en/research/ projects/ProjectDetails.html?pmode=4&textId=6337&pid=9465 Medda-Windischer, R. and Carlá, A. (eds) (2015) Migration in autonomous territories: The case of South Tyrol and Catalonia, Leiden/Boston: Koninklijke Brill. Medda-Windischer, R. and Popelier, P. (eds) (2016) Pro-independence movements and migration: Discourse, policy and practice, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. Medda-Windischer, R., Flarer, H., Girardi, R. et al (eds) (2011) Condizione e prospettive di integrazione degli stranieri in Alto Adige, Bolzano/Bozen: Eurac Research. Palermo, F. (2012) Alto Adige: Il futuro alla luce del decennio passato, Bolzano/ Bozen: Eurac Research. Pallaoro, A. and Colletti, M. (2013) ‘Nuove’ minoranze in Alto Adige/ Südtirol: Impatto sugli strumenti a tutela delle ‘vecchie’ minoranze, in R. Medda-Windischer and A. Carlá (eds) Politiche Migratorie e Autonomie Territoriali. Nuove Minoranze, Identità e Cttadinanza in Alto Adige e Catalogna, Bolzano/Bozen: Eurac Research, pp 115–59. Piche, V. (2002) Immigration, diversity and ethnic relations in Quebec, Canadian Ethnic Studies, vol 34, no 3, pp 5–27. President of the Council of Ministers (2012) case of 7 January, deposited on 17 January 2012, enrolled in the Registry 10/2012. Presidential Decree (2011) Implementing rules of the integration agreement, no 179, 14 September, in force since 10 March 2012. Provincial Law on Autonomy Convention (2015) Istituzione di una Convenzione per la riforma dello Statuto di autonomia del Trentino-Alto Adige, 3, 23 April, Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen. Provincial Law on Integration (2011) Integrazione delle cittadine e dei cittadini stranieri 12, 28 October, Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen.

98

Superdiversity and sub-national autonomous regions

Provincial Law on Public Housing Benefits (1998) Edilizia abitativa agevolata 13, 17 December, Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen. Régis, D. (2012) Regionalist parties and party competition on migration in Belgium, workshop. The new European agenda for integration: Regions, multi-level governance and immigrant integration in the EU, Edinburgh (UK), 18–19 June. Renan, E. (1882) Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?, Conférence à la Sorbonne du 11 mars 1882, Association scientifique de France – Bulletin hebdomadaire. Shafir, G. (1995) Immigrants and nationalists: Ethnic conflict and accommodation in Catalonia, the Basque Country, Latvia and Estonia, New York: State University of New York Press. Steininger, R. (2009) South Tyrol: A minority conflict of the twentieth century, New Brunswick, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. SVP (Südtiroler Volkspartei) (1993) Il nuovo programma della SVP, www.svp. eu/smartedit/documents/presse_downloads/grundsatzprogramm.pdf SVP (Südtiroler Volkspartei) (2011) Positionspapier, Südtirol auf dem Weg zur Vollautonomie, www.svp.eu/de/themen/55.html Wisthaler, V. (2013) Identity politics in the educational system in South Tyrol (I): balancing between minority protection and the need to manage diversity, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, vol 13, no 3, pp 358–72. Woelk, J., Palermo, F. and Marko, J. (eds) (2008) Tolerance through law: Self-governance and group rights in South Tyrol, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2005) Prólogo: Multinacionalidad y la immigración: premisas para un debate en España, in D Juteau, Inmigración, Ciudadanía y Autogobierno: Québec en perspectiva, Documentos CIDOB, Migraciones, 6. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2009a) Setting a Research Agenda on the Interaction between Cultural Demands of Immigrants and minority nations, in R. Zapata-Barrero (ed), Immigration and self-government of minority nations, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang SA. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2009b) Building a public philosophy on immigration in Catalonia, in R. Zapata-Barrero (ed) Immigration and self-government of minority nations, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang SA.

99

CHAPTER FIVE

Transmigration: the rise of flexible migration strategies as part of superdiversity Dirk Geldof, Mieke Schrooten and Sophie Withaeckx

Introduction In the last decades, several concepts have been put forward to capture the shape and impact of demographic changes in western societies as a consequence of human mobility. Changes in these concepts reflected changing views and understandings of this new reality. Thus, the concept of multiculturalism has been gradually replaced by the concept of (super) diversity (Vertovec, 2007; Meissner and Vertovec, 2014; Boccagni, 2015b; Geldof, 2016). Moreover, within social sciences, views on the process of human movement itself have evolved: originally, migration was understood as a unidirectional, purposeful and intentional process from one state of fixity (in the place of origin) to another (in the destination country). However, this is not the pattern most newcomers in Europe today follow. Increasingly, people accumulate – by choice or by necessity – multiple mobilities and different trajectories; they become transmigrants (Schrooten et al, 2016b). In our research, transmigration is understood as a form of mobility that implies serial cross-border mobility, either between two countries or more, as is the case with complex migration trajectories (Schrooten et al, 2016c). More recent scientific insights explicitly point to the importance of these ‘multiple, overlapping and turbulent processes of migration, dislocation, displacement, disjuncture and dialogism’ (Urry, 2007, 35), emphasising the co-existence of many different forms of movement, ranging from shortterm temporary movements to permanent migration. The impact of these complex forms of mobility and diversity has also been described in social work literature. In general, social work researchers argue that social work practices are not yet fully equipped to deal with a clientele presenting an increasing diversity regarding ethnicity, religion, language and immigration status (Furman et al, 2010; Phillimore, 2015; Furman et al, 2016). Social workers are often unfamiliar with these complexities inherent to superdiversity, and may reproduce one-dimensional and reductionist frames of reference, reducing the social problems with which they are confronted to mere ethnicity 100

Transmigration

or culture (Boccagni, 2015a). Social welfare policies and practices may thus contribute to the structural exclusion of newcomers, as they are, for instance, not equipped to deal with multilingualism and exclude people with particular immigration statuses from certain rights or welfare allocations. Moreover, local ‘integration’ programmes and courses are often designed for migrants who will permanently settle, but do not take into account the differing needs of newcomers whose immigration status is precarious and whose stay may therefore be of limited duration (Van den Broucke et al, 2014; Schrooten et al, 2016b). Within the fields of migration studies and superdiversity, transmigration and its impact on social policy are still underexplored. Yet, the rising number of transmigrants within Europe – from outside the EU as well as intra-EUmobility – does not only challenge our ideas of belonging and integration, but also existing concepts of governance and social policy. As Collins (2012, 321) points out, ‘questions of temporariness versus permanence are rarely the subject of theoretical inquiry’; nor is the impact of this temporality on (social) policies and welfare practices (Powell and Robison, 2007; Ramanathan and Link, 1999; Stoesz et al, 1999). By foregrounding the cases of Brazilian, Ghanaian and Moroccan transmigrants residing in Belgium in 2014–15, this chapter contributes to a scientific debate regarding these topics. It presents the results of a research project in the two main superdiverse Belgian cities (Brussels and Antwerp), focusing on the social problems and vulnerabilities that relate to transmigration and its inherent temporality and the way that these are experienced and addressed by social workers in superdiverse urban areas within policy frameworks that often do not (yet) recognise the changing context.

Transmigration as part of rising superdiversity Many West European countries in the twenty-first century are going through a transition towards superdiversity. Superdiversity is the process of the diversification of diversity, of migration driven diversification. As a result of these processes, there is an increasing diversity within the population with regard to nationalities and countries of origin, migration motives, trajectories and migration statuses, languages spoken, religions practised, socio-economic positions and so on (Vertovec, 2007 and 2016; Blommaert, 2014; Meissner and Vertovec, 2014; Geldof, 2016). The increasing diversity and the diversification of diversity gradually lead to processes of normalisation of diversity, meaning that diversity becomes commonplace in a growing number of cities and neighbourhoods (Crul et al, 2013; Kasinitz et al, 2009; Wessendorf, 2014) or contexts such as schools, hospitals and other professional settings. Patterns of difference are 101

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

no longer exclusively or dominantly linked with ethnicity, but also include differences in gender, age, religion and socio-economic situation, among others. This normalisation does not imply, however, that legislation or social protection schemes are already adapted to the increasing diversity (see below). ‘The spread, speed and scale of diversification processes, and the conditions of superdiversity that arise with them, are inherently tied to power, politics and policy’, according to Meissner and Vertovec (2014, 552). This makes normalisation processes strongly contested, despite the demographic transition. This transition is most visible in the larger cities, as urban areas continue to serve as the main destination of international migrants, and, as such, as a possible entrance into a host society. Benton-Short and Price (2008) use the term ‘gateway cities’ to stress the function of a city as a ‘turnstile’ for migrants wishing to eventually leave and settle in another location. In many ‘gateway cities’, there are specific urban neighbourhoods that see a steady influx of new immigrants and function as an entrance through which newcomers arrive. The cheaper housing opportunities, the presence of social networks and the easier access to work and consumption products, among others, make these neighbourhoods more attractive to immigrants than other parts of the city. Authors such as Saunders (2011) and Oosterlynck and Schillebeeckx (2012) refer to these neighbourhoods as ‘arrival cities’, ‘arrival neighbourhoods’ or ‘transition zones’, boroughs that act as an ‘escalator’ for people (Travers et al, 2007). Our research took place in Belgium’s two most superdiverse arrival cities, namely Brussels and Antwerp (see below). The aspect of superdiversity we focus on in this chapter is the existence of many different forms of mobility (Faist, 2013). Too often, mobility remains analysed in terms of classic and direct migration patterns: people leaving their countries of origin, migrating directly to their new countries of destination, where they start building up their new lives. For many labour migrants in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s, this was the dominant migration pattern, as it was for their partners and children joining them in the following decades. In a context of superdiversity, this is only one of the different forms of mobility. Increasing numbers of people are experiencing more complex migration patterns, moving several times between different countries (Cresswell, 2006; Glick Schiller and Salazar, 2014). It is this pattern of mobility that we understand by transmigration: the complex and multiple migration patterns of people who resided in different countries and/or have the intention to migrate further in the (near) future or to return to previous countries (Schrooten et al, 2016c). We thus use the term ‘transmigrants’ in a more narrow sense compared to the way Nina Glick Schiller and her associates coined the concept in 102

Transmigration

1995 (Glick Schiller et al, 1995). They introduced it to describe qualitative differences of late twentieth-century migrations compared with their nineteenth- and early twentieth-century counterparts, drawing attention to the fact that late twentieth-century migrants’ social practices occurred almost simultaneously on the territories of more than one national state. With ‘transmigrants’, they referred to migrants whose daily lives depend on multiple and constant interconnections across international borders and whose public identities are configured in relationship to more than one nation-state (Faist et al, 2013). Yet, transmigration is experienced by a wide range of present-day mobile people, as most of them frequently operate beyond the borders of nominally sovereign states. This has led us to formulate a more narrow definition of the concept, in order to be able to analyse the impact of transmigration on social policy and urban social work. Transmigration not only differs from more classical migration patterns because of the transnational activities of transmigrants, it is also a form of multiple mobilities, implying a higher degree of temporality from the point of view of the migrant. For transmigrants, there is much more uncertainty about the duration of their stay, as they are influenced and limited by relationships, laws, statuses and sources of support that transcend national borders. Although transmigrants may settle and stop moving at a certain moment, for many, their actual intention or expectation is not to remain. Using the lens of superdiversity to understand transmigration today makes it imperative to account for diversity among different groups of transmigrants. Transmigrants represent a diverse assembly of individuals who experience various levels of acceptance in their countries of origin and of residence (Schrooten et al, 2016a). Depending on their positioning on axes of differentation like ethnicity, class, economic status and gender, ‘transmigrants may find equality and even privilege in some areas of their life while experiencing injustice in others’ (Mohan and Clark Prickett, 2010). In our research, we focused on those transmigrants who found themselves in a vulnerable position. In this chapter, we discuss the specific vulnerabilities these transmigrants experience, some of them resulting from different regulations and/or conflicting policy regimes in the different countries in which they resided.

An explorative study on transmigrants in Belgian superdiverse cities In our research we interviewed 54 transmigrants of Brazilian, Ghanaian and Moroccan origin living in Brussels or Antwerp: the two largest cities of Belgium and the main arrival cities for many newcomers to 103

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Belgium. Brussels, the capital of Belgium and of the European Union, has become a majority-minority city as the majority of its 1.1 million inhabitants has a migration background. Approximately 60 per cent of the actual inhabitants are born outside Belgium or have a mother and/or a father who was born abroad. Antwerp is situated in the northern part of Belgium (Flanders). In 2016, 46.9 per cent of the 518,000 inhabitants had a migration background. Due to rapid demographic transition Antwerp will become a majority-minority city by 2020. In both cities we find approximately 170 different nationalities (Geldof, 2016). We focused on transmigrants with a maximum duration of stay in Belgium of five years. Due to their position regarding immigration status, length of stay, ethnicity and language proficiency, this group of transmigrants is likely to be confronted with specific vulnerabilities. Many recently arrived transmigrants face a high risk of poverty and are overrepresented in the client population of social services. Recent immigrants face a more weakly developed local social network and their transnational contacts are often limited to affective and emotional ties (Boccagni, 2010; Ryan et al, 2008). Although these transnational ties may be resorted to for emotional support and advice, they can less easily provide for ‘practical, hands-on support and assistance’ (Ryan et al, 2008, 684). We limited our investigations to three sub-groups based on their (original) country of origin. With our choice of transmigrants of Moroccan, Brazilian and Ghanaian origin we attempted to strike a balance between maximum variation and comparability. All transmigrants we interviewed were newcomers from countries of origin outside the EU that are not currently in a war zone, so that the focus is not on people fleeing their country to escape from violence and danger. The three groups differ in their migratory history and their presence in Belgium, which allows us to look at the impact of differences in the size of social networks here. Morocco was the main country from where Belgium recruited labour-migrants in the 1960s. Moroccans have become the largest community from outside the EU in Belgium, estimated at 430,000. They represent 12 per cent of the inhabitants of Antwerp and 11 per cent of the inhabitants of Brussels. In both cities they are the largest group of citizens with a migration background. Before the refugee crisis of 2015, Morocco remained Belgium’s most important country of origin for new migrants from outside the EU. During the last decades, the most important motivation for migration from Morocco to Belgium has been family reunification, mostly after marriages between second and third generation Belgian Moroccans and Moroccan nationals (Perrin and Martiniello, 2011; Vancluysen and Van Craen, 2011). In this decade, migration from people with a Moroccan background from other EU-countries increased due to 104

Transmigration

the economic crisis in Southern Europe (Spain, Italy) or because of more restrictive migration policies on family reunification (the Netherlands). This changing migration pattern makes them an interesting case. The smaller but increasing presence of Brazilians residing in Belgium was a second case. Although Brazilian migration towards Belgium is relatively recent, starting in the 1960s, it has been referred to as an important trend by Brazilian policy makers (Pedroso, 2011), the Ministry of the Brusselscapital region and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) (Góis et al, 2009). Between 1995 and 2010 the number of Brazilians residing in Belgium has significantly augmented, from 1,312 officially residing Brazilians in Belgium in 1995 to 7,463 in 2013 (Université Catholique de Louvain and Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding, 2014). Still, official numbers largely underestimate the real size of the Brazilian community, which is estimated to be between 10,000 and 60,000 migrants for Belgium (Góis et al, 2009; Ministério das Relações Exteriores, 2012). The presence of Brazilian migrants in Belgium is facilitated by bilateral agreements between Belgium and Brazil allowing Brazilian nationals to enter Belgium without previously having to request a visa. Many among them remain within the Schengen associated countries after the allowed tourist stay of 90 days (Schrooten, 2012). The third group of transmigrants we focused on are Ghanaians. Belgium first became a migration destination for Ghanaian citizens in the 1980s, when neighbouring Nigeria expelled many of its own Ghanaian migrants. This was followed in 1994–95 by a period of ethnic violence in the northern part of Ghana, which caused 150,000 people to flee their homes. In the early years of Ghanaian migration to Belgium it was again possible to detect a circular pattern: after their request for asylum had been turned down, many Ghanaians returned to Ghana or migrated to a different (European) country. Since the 1990s the number of arrivals from Ghana grew mainly as a consequence of family reunification migration. According to IOM estimations, approximately 16,000 people of Ghanaian origin are registered in Belgium. Antwerp and Brussels each host just over 3,000 people from Ghana. Their migration trajectories across the Mediterranean and their networks in Brussels and Antwerp made them an interesting third group. Within these three groups of migrants, we only retained transmigrants who recently arrived in Belgium (for a maximum of five years), lived in Brussels or Antwerp, had a complex migration trajectory involving periods of residence in different countries (and/or the intention to move again in the future) and who were living in a vulnerable situation. We excluded expats, diplomats or high skilled employees of international institutions

105

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

in Brussels, focusing on transmigrants who called on (or who are living in a situation that they should have access to) social work. We used a mixed-method approach. Triangulation of the scientific literature, in-depth interviews with transmigrants and focus group discussions with social workers made it possible to explore the phenomenon of transmigration from different and complementary angles, visions and experiences. First, in-depth interviews have been done with three groups of transmigrants: Brazilians (22 interviews), Ghanaians (13 interviews) and Moroccans (19 interviews).1 We combined different ways to contact these transmigrants, in order to obtain a maximum of diversity within our group of respondents. Some were contacted via social work organisations (language courses, vocational training, food support), others via religious institutions or immigrant organisations. Students from Moroccan descent helped us to establish contacts with newly arrived Moroccan transmigrants. As one of the researchers had conducted a doctoral research among Brazilians in Belgium, she already had built up a network of Brazilian respondents. Via online Facebook groups of Brazilians residing in Belgium and through snowballing, she contacted other Brazilian transmigrants. Besides in-depth interviews with transmigrants, we organised four focus groups with 20 social work organisations in Brussels and Antwerp and discussed their experiences of working with transmigrants.2 Here as well we tried to obtain a maximum of diversity in this explorative research by differentiating the kind of social organisations (public and private, local and international, professional and volunteer-driven organisations). We invited professional workers from the Public Centre for Social Welfare (local authority), NGOs working locally and international NGOs involved in voluntary return schemes or working with victims of human trafficking, but also organisations solely working with volunteers within communities. The transcripts of the focus groups as well as the interviews were coded and analysed using Nvivo.

What does transmigration look like? When we mapped the migration patterns and the different countries where our respondents lived during a relevant period of time before living in Belgium, we found that these patterns were extremely varied, dependent on, among others, their country of origin, their networks and the choices they made in their lives. With the Brazilian respondents there was often a pattern of mobility within Brazil before their international mobility (de Brito and de Carvalho, 2006). In comparison with Ghanaian and Moroccan transmigrants, the Brazilian transmigrants often had stayed in other countries for longer periods before arriving in Belgium. Their 106

Transmigration

trajectories were not limited to Europe, but also included countries in South America, North America and Africa (see Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1: Migration trajectories of Brazilian respondents

The typical pattern for Moroccan transmigrants builds further on historical reunification migration. When choosing their destinations, Moroccan transmigrants frequently made use of existing contacts with family and friends who already moved to Europe or Belgium. This phenomenon is known as chain migration (Reniers, 1999). All the Moroccan transmigrants in our study stayed in at least one other country before arriving in Belgium. This list includes countries such as the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and France (see Figure 5.2). As far as Ghanaian transmigrants are concerned, it is possible to identify yet other different trajectories of migration, often with a much higher degree of risk. Some Ghanaians came directly from Ghana to Belgium, but many of them made their journeys through ‘transit’ countries, such as Senegal, Gambia, Morocco and Libya, in order to reach Europe. In particular, since the end of the twentieth century Libya has become one of the most important – but also the most dangerous – countries of access to Europe (see Figure 5.3). Most of our respondents had resided in other countries before they came to Brussels or Antwerp. For a number of them, Belgium was not 107

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe Figure 5.2: Migration trajectories of Moroccan respondents

their final destination. If the occasion would turn up, they would move again. Once again, this decision was influenced by various factors, such as better opportunities elsewhere (if Belgium turns out to be less beneficial than hoped) or simply a desire for new adventures in a new setting. ‘My husband is not so happy here. He is more used to Germany, he better understands the system there…He has always had his own business [trading between Morocco and Germany] and in Belgium, there’s so much paperwork, he finds it impossible. He prefers to live in a country where’s he’s habituated, and he also has a lot of family there…I am also open to moving to Germany, but then we have to do it before the children are 6 years old, so they won’t have too much language problems.’ (Woman, Moroccan, 26y) Others had a history of transmigration, but explicitly hoped to settle in Belgium and were afraid they would be forced to return or to move again. Their testimonies made it clear that mobility is not always voluntary. It is important to be aware of the difference between (more or less) voluntary chosen and (semi-)forced patterns of mobility.

108

Transmigration Figure 5.3: Migration trajectories of Ghanaian respondents

‘For me this [is] enough, I hope this is my last stop, I hope God will leave me here. I do not consider further migration.’ (Woman, Moroccan, 36y) ‘I’d prefer to stay in Belgium. I have already wasted four years here, if I was to go back to Morocco, I would have to start all over again…If it is my destiny, then I will stay here. I would only consider going back if there are really no other options.’ (Man, Moroccan, 35y)

Temporality and vulnerability Many transmigrants are exposed to similar problems a lot of other immigrants also face, such as low socio-economic status on arriving, 109

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

racism and discrimination. Research in Belgium has demonstrated that people with a migration background are more likely to find themselves in poverty and to suffer the consequences of social exclusion (Van Robaeys and Driessens, 2011; Van den Broucke et al, 2015). It is often difficult for them to secure (legal) work and accommodation, the local language is a strong barrier to many and they are frequently confronted with racism and discrimination. An uncertain residential status or a lack of residence documents may also be a source of stress and fear. Transmigrants share these social problems with other migrants. Moreover, as transmigrants tend to stay in any given country for only a relatively short period, they also share common experiences with other newcomers. They must find their way through a strange and unknown land, building up new networks and learning new languages, laws, rules and customs. Other social problems and vulnerabilities transmigrants may face are specifically related to their mobile lifestyle, to the more temporary nature of their residence in any place and to the fact that their life is lived in different locations across different national borders. Mobility often implies loss, of friends and family, of familiar surroundings and of known forms of welfare and social support. Multiple mobilities therefore imply multiple losses, as transmigrants pass through different locations, each time facing the challenges of settling anew and of a possible new uprooting. This permanent mobility may have a heavy impact on family relationships, as family members dispersed across the globe struggle to maintain a sense of continuity and family life. Although new technologies do provide many new possibilities for communication on a distance, the need for ‘face-to-face’ contact may be deeply felt and form a reason for a new (return) movement. This (temporary) dispersal of family members may result in differing migration statutes once families are reunited, which gives rise to the existence of ‘mixed-status families’: some family members may have legal and undetermined access to the actual place of settlement, while others have not. These families therefore run a permanent risk of (renewed) separation which causes stress and insecurity. Procedures of divorce or family reunification with family members of differing nationalities and migration statuses may also present severe juridical complexities. The Brazilian, Paula, for example, faced a complicated procedure when trying to divorce from her Swedish partner. They had met in Europe, married in Brazil and had moved to Belgium afterwards: ‘I came here through a family reunification procedure. Then I divorced. When I divorced, the municipality refused to change my visa, although I did have right to another status. We had lived 110

Transmigration

on different locations, in other countries, which complicated the issue. I am still trying to solve all these problems now.’ (Woman, Brazilian, 37y) Transmigrants lacking a legal residence status – one third of our respondents – faced exclusion from the official labour market and from formal social services. Others mostly had a temporary status. Transmigrants moving from southern EU-countries to Belgium as long-term EU-residents, benefited from the right to free movement within the EU (because they obtained the Spanish or Italian nationality, or were recognised as non-EU long-term residents and thus received a permanent residence permit that is standard for all EU countries). Nevertheless, they were often excluded from welfare assistance and unemployment benefits in Belgium as their new place of residence. This puts them under pressure to find a job and to keep it for a sufficient amount time, in order to acquire these social rights. ‘It took a year and a half before my husband found a job, we were so fed up that we wanted to return to Spain. You know, we had to pay double rent, because we lived over there and he travelled back and forth to Belgium. The first problem was work. The language problem is big…that’s why it took him so long to find a job. Just when we wanted to give up, he found a job.’ (Woman, Moroccan, 36y) ‘I had a permanent residence [in Italy]. No Italian nationality, but my document is a long-term stay, as it is called…So they told me it was possible for me to stay here [in Belgium]…All other people from Italy received papers, except me. I proved I had no criminal record, I collected all documents, but they told me I need a labour contract, or a school, or a Belgian partner to marry…It is really frustrating.’ (Man, Ghanaian, 25y) For many transmigrants, the opportunity of work is what motivates them to move again. Following opportunities for work across national borders, these labour migrants often originate from economically more deprived areas. Due to their precarious migrant status, they are very vulnerable for economic exploitation, as social workers reported in the focus groups. Such labour migrants may be attracted to Belgium under false premises, and may be put to work under doubtful conditions. Once here they may receive less than the current minimum wage, and may be very poorly housed. Furthermore, particular groups of transmigrants face specific risks of exploitation, as is the case for undocumented migrants, drug addicts and 111

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

(unaccompanied) minors. These groups may therefore become victims of diverse forms of economic and sexual exploitation. An additional dimension when dealing with transmigrants, is formed by the memories and experiences gained by them along their complex migration trajectories. Transmigration often means starting from scratch all over again at frequent intervals. After a first settlement, they could have acquired skills (like mastering the local language) and built up social networks useful in one location. Resettlement in Belgium means losing an often difficultly-gained status and re-adapting to an unfamiliar environment where previously acquired skills are not always recognised. This was, for instance, the case for Yasmina, who used to have an administrative job in the Netherlands, but had to work as a cleaner after her move to Belgium: ‘I don’t say it is a bad job. But I have never done something like this, and then you come here, and I had to take like ten steps back from where I was in the Netherlands. I had accomplished something and here, I had to start again from scratch. It gave me a very odd feeling. I really cried, wanted to return to the Netherlands, regretted I ever came here.’ (Woman, Moroccan, 45y)

Transmigration challenges social work and social policies Despite their vulnerability, many transmigrants have problems getting access to formal social help. Most of our respondents did not benefit from financial or material support from official social services in Belgium. Sometimes they were not entitled because they were undocumented or did not meet the criteria to receive a means-tested benefit as an EU-citizen. In other cases, they lacked information about their social rights or about the existing social services. Often, current social policies and existing social services were not designed to meet the needs of transmigrants. In the focus group discussions with social workers, the question of intra-EU migration frequently arose. Intra-EU migration is a very specific form of multiple cross-border mobility. Thanks to the principle of the free movement of labour, the citizens of EU member states have the right to move freely throughout the European Union. While this principle of the free movement of labour might at first glance seems to simplify things, in reality the regulations for mobile employees are very complex, because of the different legislative provisions applicable in the different countries involved. These mobile employees are not only subject to European legislation, but also to the rights and obligations of the national (and sometimes regional) legislations and social security protections in the countries where they reside and work 112

Transmigration

(Schrooten et al, 2016c). The national social security schemes are designed to meet the needs of documented people residing with a reasonable amount of stability within the nation state, but they struggle with the ‘newness’ and the number of clients being perpetually new (Phillimore, 2015). Social security rights are in principle transferable within the EU; however, for many transmigrants this turns out to be too complex, too time-consuming and too bureaucratic. Their newness, temporality and ‘inbetween-ness’ challenges national social protection schemes. ‘They [long-term residents] are regarded as equivalent to European citizens. That means, as long as everything is going well and they have work, there is no problem. But the moment things go wrong and they become dependent, that’s when the trouble starts. Because they cannot claim social insurance benefits. One difficulty then leads to another: financial problems, residence papers, etc.’ (Welfare worker) During the focus groups with social work organisations, social workers reported that the growing number of transmigrants is posing new challenges to social policy and to urban social work. New questions and challenges arise: How can social policies and social work organisations designed for stable residents reach these (more temporal and mobile) clients? How should they deal with transmigrants’ specific welfare needs? Can they take account of the multiple transnational environments of these individuals and families, and in what ways? How should they evaluate the importance of their clients’ networks across borders and include them in their policies and social work practices? Should social workers help transmigrants to migrate further, support them to settle and integrate or guarantee basic social rights during their (temporary) stay in the city or the country? While transmigration is becoming an important reality for social policy and social work practice in superdiverse urban contexts, many politicians, organisations and social work professionals are still unfamiliar with this type of mobility and are looking for suitable policies and methods to deal with this new group. It is no longer possible to automatically assume, as was the case in the past, that these migrants will permanently stay in Belgium. As a result, social work can no longer focus exclusively on their clients’ relationships, experiences and sources of support within Belgium (Withaeckx et al, 2017). Social workers increasingly need to take account of the fact that the living environment of transmigrants is shaped by extensive transnational networks.

113

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

‘It is not part of our statutory task to share or exchange knowledge at European level but we do it anyway, because transmigration means that nowadays we all have a shared agenda… In our work, we are all confronted daily with people who have undergone a migration process. In my opinion, this means that a knowledge of what is going on at European level, or even at world level, must be a part of our basic approach. You not only need to know what you are doing, but also what other towns are doing, what other countries are doing. What are their attitudes? What is their approach?’ (Social worker, integration policy) Hunter and her colleagues argue that the context of transmigration calls for a paradigm shift. In working with transmigrants, social workers ‘can no longer pay attention to relationships, resources, structures, laws and history in one locale and not consider the same in another country where the systems may be informed by a significantly different world view for their clients’ (Hunter et al, 2010, 222). The social life of transmigrants is not only oriented towards their new country of residence, but consists of complex networks and contacts beyond boundaries. In order to provide effective social work for this population, social workers can no longer solely focus on local and regional problems, but should instead take into account the multiple locations that are relevant to these transmigrants’ networks and activities. This has organisational and policy consequences as well, because the policy setting in which social workers operate is still based upon classic migration patterns and social needs within national borders. Providing support to transmigrants brings new challenges and raises new questions for social welfare providers, social organisations and municipal authorities. Moreover, there are no ready-made solutions and answers for these challenges and questions. A first challenge relates to the manner in which transmigrants view and deal with the support provision agencies in Belgium. Social and welfare workers regularly reported that their clients do not seem to trust or have confidence in the local support services. At the same time, they noted that transmigrants sometimes deliberately tried to exploit the support system. Some attempt to use repatriation programmes almost as a kind of ‘travel agency’. Others demonstrate ‘shopping behaviour’, approaching many different organisations in different locations to see which one can offer them the ‘best deal’. A different kind of problem relates to the way social and welfare support is organised in Belgium. Even in larger cities, the range of support services has not yet been adapted to reflect the superdiversity of which transmigration is an essential element. The Western frames of reference with regard to welfare support are based on culture-specific ideas about 114

Transmigration

(among other things) the individual, social relationships and self-reliance. Nowadays, these ideas can clash with the opinions and customs of a clientele that is becoming increasingly diverse. In the case of transmigrants, these cultural differences manifest themselves in their interpretation of notions like ‘family’, ‘solidarity’ and ‘cross-border relationships’. Regulations and policy are often conceptualised within an individualist framework, where rights and obligations are viewed on an individual basis. Although some support agencies are already using new approaches to better map the complex networks of their clients, we still have too few insights into the scale, nature and impact of these border-transcending networks, which exercise an important influence on transmigrants in particular. Because social policies are not (yet) designed for or adapted to the emerging group of transmigrants, social work organisations develop new practices to deal with this new reality. Responding to the arrival of transmigrants from Southern Europe, informal and voluntary organisations of second and third generation immigrants in Belgium recently started charity initiatives, including food support, because the group of migrants who are not allowed access to social security or means-tested benefits has known a sharp increase. Religious institutions and immigrant organisations are confronted with an increasing social need. Al Ikram, one of the new charity organisations in our research, reported about tensions within the Moroccan community in Antwerp. ‘There are a lot of families taking care of family members coming from Spain. They do that in the beginning, because it’s family. But after one or two years…it becomes too much for them. They refer them to us: “I brought my uncle or my cousin or my aunt here from Spain, we tried to pay their rent, their expenses, but it’s too much for us. Can you take over?” ’ (Volunteer with Al Ikram) Another new practice is the emergence of social work organisations from countries of origin of transmigrants, which are recently recruited by local authorities in the ‘destination’ countries. In the focus groups with social workers, the Polish organisation, Barka, was frequently mentioned as an example. Since February 2014 Barka tries to help homeless Polish and other Central and Eastern European people who are not coping with life in Antwerp. Barka helps them to return to their home countries, either to enter rehab treatments, go back to their families, to Barka Network programmes (educational and community programmes, creating work places and accessible housing programmes) in Poland or orients them to regular social services in Antwerp. Similar projects started in London, 115

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Copenhagen, Dublin, Hamburg and in the Netherlands in Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht (www.barka.org. pl/; www.barkanl.org). Transmigration – in this case of Polish workers who become homeless – thus leads to new actors in the social field in European cities, with social work organisations developing transnational social work provisions.

Decoupled multilevel governance of transmigration Migration and migrant integration policies have become increasingly dispersed over various levels of government. In ‘The multilevel governance of migration and integration’, (Scholten and Penninx (2016) distinguish between four ideal type configurations of relations between government levels: centralist (top-down), localist (bottom-up), multilevel and decoupled. When we look at transmigration, we interpret the problems of transmigrants as the result of the fourth ideal type: decoupled relations between government levels. Scholten and Penninx (2016, 92–4) define this as a situation characterised by the absence of any meaningful policy coordination between levels. Thus, in any single policy domain, policies at different levels are dissociated and may even be contradictory. Transmigrants have to cope with differences in European, national and regional legislations. EU-legislation makes intra-EU-mobility possible for EU-citizens and long-term residents, including transferability of social security rights within the EU. Social security, however, remains at the level of the EU-member states, which makes the transferability of social security rights in practice difficult and time-consuming. Integration policies and social policies are produced at national, regional and local levels. Settlement migrants who directly migrate for their country of origin towards their new country of destination are confronted with policies from two different countries, for example with respect to legislations on nationality, social security rights or family legislation on weddings, divorces or testimonies. Quite often, these two different legislations are not (completely) compatible. Transmigrants, however, have to combine multiple legislations, social rights and/or and administrative procedures related to their temporary stay in three, four or even more countries, which is an important characteristic of their social vulnerability. Increasing mobility challenges existing policies and procedures, whereby transmigrants hardly have a voice because of their temporality in each of the countries. We live in an era of unprecedented mobility that has been markedly urban, which is the main line in the World Migration Report 2015 on ‘Migrants and cities: new partnerships to manage mobility’. According to the IOM this ‘calls for new approaches to urban governance and migration 116

Transmigration

policies’ (IOM, 2015, 2). Part of the challenge is dealing with increasing mobility, newness and temporality. Today’s social policies and social services targeted at permanent residents, with or without a migration background, remain the core of urban social policies in superdiverse cities. However, the increase of the number of more temporary citizens, transmigrants with complex migration trajectories and/or the intention to move again in the near future, confront us with specific needs. Developing adequate and coordinated social policies and services to cope with this growing reality of transmigration requires an enhanced understanding of the multiple spaces inhabited by transmigrants, and of the complex legal, cultural, social and political contexts that push and pull families across national and local borders (Webster et al, 2010, 208). This is a challenging shift for urban social policy and for social work in an urban context. Policies on migration, nationality and social legislations remain largely the responsibility of the nation states in Europe, although increasingly embedded in European legislation. In superdiverse cities, urban social policies are still embedded within these national policy frameworks, whereas transmigrants shift between different visible and invisible, local and global networks. They combine ‘some functional sense of local “rootedness” with opportunities that are more transnational, even global, in scope’ (Simone, 2001, 36).

Conclusion Our research confirms transmigration as a reality in the superdiverse Belgian cities of Brussels and Antwerp. The lens of superdiversity enabled a focus on processes of differentiation, especially concerning migration trajectories and migration motives. A growing part of the newly arrived migrants in Belgium are increasingly mobile, temporary and engaged in transnational networks spanning multiple locations. The condition of transmigration has impact on their welfare needs, on their decisions to move and on their ability to build up social capital in new locations. As such, transmigration will influence our understanding of rootedness, identity and integration. It challenges us to redesign and better coordinate the ways we design social policies beyond the actual decoupled multi-level governance in a context of superdiversity and increasing mobility. Notes 1 This Practice-oriented Scientific Research Project ‘Urban social work with transmigrants: an investigation of welfare needs, methodological challenges and opportunities’ was carried out between September 2013 and September 2015. It was funded by the Odisee University College, 117

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

2

guided by a steering committee and was carried out to conform to the ethical rules of Odisee University College. The team of four researchers participated in the focus-groups. For a list of all organisations that participated in the focus groups, see Schrooten et al, 2016c.

References Benton-Short, L. and Price, M. (2008) Migrants to the metropolis: The rise of immigrant gateway cities, an introduction, in M. Price and L. Benton-Short (eds) Migrants to the metropolis: The rise of immigrant gateway cities, pp 1–22, New York: Syracuse University Press. Blommaert, J. (2014) Infrastructures of superdiversity: Conviviality and language in an Antwerp neighbourhood, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol 17, no 4, pp 431–51. Boccagni, P. (2010) Private, public or both? On the scope and impact of transnationalism in immigrants’ everyday lives, in R. Bauböck and T. Faist (eds) Diaspora and transnationalism: Concepts, theories and methods, pp 185–204, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Boccagni, P. (2015a) (Super)diversity and the migration – social work nexus: A new lens on the field of access and inclusion?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 608–20. Boccagni, P. (2015b) The difference diversity makes: A principle, a lens, an empirical attribute for majority–minority relations, in T. Matejskova and M. Antonsich (eds) Governing through diversity: Migration societies in post-multiculturalist times, pp 21–38, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Collins, F. (2012) Transnational mobilities and urban spatialities: Notes from the Asia-Pacific, Progress in Human Geography, vol 36, no 3, pp 316–35. Cresswell, T. (2006) On the move: Mobility in the modern western world, New York: Routledge. Crul, M., Schneider, J. and Lelie, F. (2013) Superdiversity: A new perspective on integration, Amsterdam: VU University Press. de Brito, F. and de Carvalho, J. (2006) As migrações internas no Brasil. As novidades sugeridas pelos censos demográficos de 1991 e 2000 e pela PNADs recentes, Parcerias Estratégicas, vol 22, pp 441–54. Faist, T. (2013) The mobility turn: A new paradigm for the social sciences?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 36, no 11, pp 1637–46. Faist, T., Fauser, M. and Reisenauer, E. (2013) Transnational migration, Cambridge: Polity Press. Furman, R., Negi, N. and Salvador, R. (2010) An introduction to transnational social work, in N. Negi and R. Salvador (eds) Transnational social work practice, pp 3–19, New York: Columbia University Press. 118

Transmigration

Furman, R., Lamphear, G. and Epps, D. (2016) The immigrant other: Lived experiences in a transnational world, New York: Columbia University Press. Geldof, D. (2016) Superdiversity in the heart of Europe: How migration changes our society, Leuven/Den Haag: Acco. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L. and Blanc-Szanton, C. (1995) From immigrant to transmigrant: Theorizing transnational migration, Anthropological Quarterly, vol 68, no 1, pp 48–63. Glick Schiller, N. and Salazar, N. (2013) Regimes of mobility across the globe, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 39, no 2, pp 183–200. Góis, P., Reyntjens, P., Lenz, A., Coelho, C. and Gouveia, D. (2009) Assessment of Brazilian migration patterns and assisted voluntary return programme from selected European Member States to Brazil, Brussels: International Organization for Migration. Hunter, C., Lepley, S. and Nickels, S. (2010) New practice frontiers: Current and future social work with transmigrants, in N. Negi and R. Furman (eds) Transnational social work practice, pp 222–41, New York: Columbia University Press. IOM (International Organisation for Migration) (2015) World migration report 2015: Migrants and cities: new partnerships to manage mobility, Geneva: IOM. Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J., Waters, M. and Holdaway, J. (2009) Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age, Cambridge: Russell Sage Foundation. Meissner, F. and Vertovec, S. (2014) Comparing super-diversity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 541–55. Ministério das Relações Exteriores (2012) Diplomacia Consular, 2007 a 2012, Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. Mohan, B. and Clark Prickett, J. (2010) Macro social work practice with transmigrants, in N Negi, R Furman (eds) Transnational social work practice, pp 191–204, New York: Colombia University Press. Oosterlynck, S. and Schillebeeckx, E. (2012) Stad en sociale ongelijkheid: Naar een sociale stijgingsperspectief?, in D. Holemans (eds) Mensen maken de stad. Bouwstenen voor een sociaalecologische toekomst, pp 128–44, Berchem: Epo. Pedroso, L. (2011) O recente fenômeno imigratório de nacionais brasileiros na Bélgica, Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. Perrin, N. and Martiniello, M. (2011) Transnationale activiteiten van migranten in België: Factor van integratie of van terugtrekking in de eigen groep?, Brussels: Koning Boudewijnstichting/Centre d’Etudes de l’Ethnicité et des Migrations.

119

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Phillimore, J. (2015) Delivering maternity services in an era of superdiversity: The challenges of novelty and newness, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 568–82. Powell, J. and Robison, J. (2007) The ‘international dimension’ in social work education: Current developments in England, European Journal of Social Work, vol 10, no 3, pp 383–99. Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M. and Siara, B. (2008) Social networks, social support and social capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London, Sociology, vol 42, no 4, pp 672–90. Saunders, D. (2011) Arrival city: How the largest migration in history is reshaping our world, London: Windmill books. Scholten, P. and Penninx, R. (2016) The multilevel governance of migration and integration, in B. Garcés–Mascareñas and R. Penninx (eds) Integration processes and policies in Europe: Contexts, levels and actors, pp 91–108, International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion (IMISCOE) research series, Springer Open. Schrooten, M. (2012) (Trans)Forming boundaries in a contact zone: The experience of Brazilian migrants in Brussels, Revista de Ciencias Sociales, vol 29, pp 89–104. Schrooten, M., Geldof, D. and Withaeckx, S. (2016a) Transmigration and urban social work: Towards a research agenda, European Journal of Social Work, vol 19, no 1, pp 18–30. Schrooten, M., Salazar, N. and Dias, G. (2016b) Living in mobility: Trajectories of Brazilians in Belgium and the United Kingdom, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 42, no 7, pp 1199–215. Schrooten, M., Withaeckx, S., Geldof, D. and Lavent, M. (2016c) Transmigration. Social work in a world of superdiversity, Leuven/Den Haag: Acco. Simone, A. (2001) On the worlding of African Cities, African Studies Review, vol 44, no 2, p 15–41. Stoesz, D., Guzzetta, C. and Lusk, M. (1999) International development, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Tarrius, A. (2000) Les fourmis d’Europe: Migrants riches, migrants pauvres et nouvelles villes internationales, Paris: Editions L’Harmattan. Travers, T., Tunstall, R., Whitehead, C. and Pruvot, S. (2007) Population mobility and service provision: A report for London councils, London: LSE. Université Catholique de Louvain, Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding (2014) Statistisch en demografisch verslag 2013: Migraties en migrantenpopulaties in België, Brussels: Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding. Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities, Cambridge: Polity.

120

Transmigration

Vancluysen, K. and Van Craen, M. (2011) Transnationale activiteiten en sociaal-culturele integratie: verenigbaar of niet?, in J. Ackaert and T. Van Regenmortel (eds) Gelijk oversteken? Een staalkaart van onderzoeksbevindingen rond integratie, pp 203–25, Brugge: Vandenbroele. Van den Broucke, S., De Cuyper, P. and Wets, J. (2014) Profielschets en inburgeringstrajecten van Zuid-Europese immigranten in Vlaanderen, Antwerp: Steunpunt inburgering en Integratie. Van den Broucke, S., Noppe, J., Stuyck, K., Buysschaert, P., Doyen, G. and Wets, J. (2015) Vlaamse Migratie- en Integratiemonitor 2015, Antwerp and Brussels: Steunpunt Inburgering en Integratie, Agentschap Binnenlands Bestuur. Van Robaeys, B. and Driessens, K. (2011) Gekleurde armoede en hulpverlening, Tielt: LannooCampus. Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54. Vertovec, S. (2016) Super-diversity as concept and approach: Whence it came, where it’s at, and whither it’s going, Lecture, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, www.mmg.mpg. de/index.php?id=1636 Wessendorf, S. (2014) Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Webster, S., Arenas, A. and Magaña, S. (2010) Incorporating transnational social work into the curriculum, in N. Negi and R. Furman (eds) Transnational social work practice, pp 205–21, New York: Columbia University Press. Withaeckx, S., Geldof, D. and Schrooten, M. (2015) Living across borders: The everyday experiences of Moroccan and Brazilian transmigrants in Belgium, Crossings: Journal of Migration and Culture, vol 6, no 1, pp 23–40. Withaeckx, S., Geldof, D. and Schrooten, M. (2017) Thinking and acting globally ànd locally: Developing transnational social work practices in superdiverse societies, Transnational Social Review, doi: 10.1080/21931674.2017.1317198

121

CHAPTER SIX

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies: a study on European cities Maurizio Ambrosini

Introduction This chapter, building on a comparative study of immigration policies at the urban level in Europe, discusses the present state of multiculturalist approaches and their adaptations at the local level after the ‘multiculturalism backlash’ (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2009) in most political discourse. The relations between national frameworks and urban policies, the changing labels and the forms of continuity of local immigration policies, the involvement of civil society actors, the appearance of local policies of exclusion, will be the issues analysed in the chapter. As I will suggest in the conclusion, diversity could be the new framework within which multiculturalist stances can be reshaped.

Beyond multiculturalism?1 In recent years, immigration policies in most European countries have been intended to reaffirm both the control of external borders and the values of identity and national belonging, and particularly so since 2001 (Balibar, 2012). Especially in the case of non-skilled third country nationals, this approach can be defined as neo-assimilationist. Learning the local language, displaying political loyalty, and adapting to national values of some kind are generally required (Antonsich, 2016). In an increasing number of cases, this includes language tests and the formal signing of special ‘integration agreements’ according to a demand for ‘civic integration’ (Joppke, 2007; Goodman, 2010). This change in immigration policies goes hand in hand with growing disaffection with multiculturalism, at least as a discourse, in the European political debate (Prins and Slijper, 2002; Grillo, 2005). Several national leaders, including Blair, Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy, have openly criticised the political idea of multiculturalism (Collett, 2011). This term can nevertheless be understood in different ways. It can be defined, following Modood, as ‘the recognition of group difference within the 122

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

public sphere of laws, democratic discourses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity’ (2007, 2). But it can also be assumed, in practice, as an umbrella term covering many types of policies concerning ethnic and cultural diversities, migrants’ associations, promotion of ethnic minorities. In this framework, as Faist (2009) in particular has noted, diversity now appears more accepted in the political discourse than multiculturalism: it shifts the attention from the collective (ethnic group) to individuals; it creates links with other types of diversities; and it seems more acceptable from a neoliberal point of view, also because it may be seen as a resource for organisations, marketing and service delivery (‘diversity management’). At a practical level, aspects such as support to immigrants’ and minorities’ associations, public recognition of religious pluralism connected with immigrant populations, organisation of festivals that celebrate cultural diversity in urban life, can be assumed as practical expressions of multiculturalist policies. Another introductory remark regards the relationship between multiculturalism and local policies. Contrary to political discourses that link migrants’ integration with a ‘national culture’ always difficult to define, much research has shown that in all European countries immigrant integration primarily occurs at the local level (Penninx and Martiniello, 2007), as does the recognition and management of cultural diversity. Urban policies have thus assumed growing importance for the social inclusion of immigrants and their families. It is at the local level, and most notably in metropolitan areas, that what Vertovec (2007) has termed ‘superdiversity’ becomes a crucial challenge. In big cities, cultural and religious diversity must be negotiated and managed vis-a-vis the assimilative pressures and expectations of receiving societies (Foner, 2007). While in the last decades of the twentieth century, multiculturalism was the prevailing framework within which these issues were treated, today they are inserted in a predominant scenario of ‘multiculturalism backlash’ (Grillo, 2005; Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2009). For this reason, local policies of immigration are forced to define new frames and languages. Against this background, comparing immigrant policies at city level acquires growing salience. Accordingly, this chapter revisits the findings of a comparative case study on immigrant and ethnic diversity policies in eight European cities (Brussels, Frankfurt, Marseille, Madrid, Manchester, Florence, Genoa and Verona) (Ambrosini, 2012). For the purposes of this chapter, among the Italian cities only Verona will be considered. Other elements useful for the present analysis will be taken from other studies on local immigration policies in Italy (Ambrosini, 2013a; Ambrosini, 2015). Building on these materials, I shall address some questions of broader 123

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

theoretical interest: 1) What is the relationship between local policies and national policies and discourses on ethnic, cultural and religious diversity? In other words, what is the political space of local policies, and their capacity to mediate between national guidelines and the actual needs of people living in certain places? 2) How do local policies manage the superdiversity of urban populations in practice, beyond the present disaffection with the multiculturalist approach? 3) What are the meanings and the effects of the increasing involvement of civil society organisations in the urban governance of superdiversity? 4) Are local policies more open to diversity than national policies, or in some cases do they seek to make the restrictions on immigrants and ethnic minorities more stringent? The contention of this chapter is that while declared policies and lexicons have undergone major changes, the assimilationist convergence trend has involved local policies to varying extents, but overall it has been more rhetorical than effective: I concur on this point with Vertovec and Wessendorf (2009). Even if it is no longer framed as ‘multiculturalist’, the public recognition of cultural differences remains in many respects a crucial element of the local governance of the superdiversity of urban communities. Nevertheless, in some cases local policies have introduced new forms of exclusion, reinforcing the boundaries between native communities and people with diverse cultural backgrounds.

The relationship between national and local diversity policies: aims and methods of the study. On both sides of the Atlantic, immigration issues are now a priority on the political agendas of governments and political parties. In several European countries, new political actors have gained ground by demanding more restrictions on new arrivals, less tolerance for cultural and religious diversity, tougher measures against irregular immigration, and fewer social benefits for newcomers. Often, their success, and the consequent fear of losing political consensus, have produced a hardening of the positions of more moderate and institutionalised political forces (Albertazzi and McDonnell, 2008; Cento Bull, 2010; Ruzza and Fella, 2009). Overall, in recent years the mainstream response to greater human mobility has moved towards the reaffirmation of borders and national sovereignty (Wihtol de Wenden, 2009). Moreover, what can be termed ‘internal borders’ are in some cases affected by a tendency towards the ‘re-ethnicization of citizenship’ (Bauböck et al, 2006). Furthermore, a feature of European policies on immigration has been identified in a growing shift towards the demand for ‘civic requirements’ to be placed on immigrants (Goodman, 2010). Even if national differences are still visible (Mouritsen, 2012), the 124

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

concept of ‘civic integration’ (Joppke, 2007) tends to blur the distinctions between the conventional ‘national models’ of immigrants’ inclusion. Civic integration, with the obligation to sign ‘integration agreements’ has been seen by this author as a key element of a ‘coercive turn’ in which liberal values are pursued with illiberal means. Furthermore, Joppke observes also a social divide in the demand for civic integration into national cultures: ‘while the state elites devising such policies are increasingly part of crossborder spanning professional networks and affiliations…, the opposite thrust of “civic integration” policies is to lock the low-skilled immigrant more firmly into established state borders’ (2007, 18). For many reasons – ranging among the demands of labour markets, humanitarian concerns, the interests of tourism, international trade, students’ recruitment in a global education market, and the action of ethnic networks – the policy of closure is, however, often contradicted by the facts (Castles, 2004; Ambrosini, 2013b). Nor is it easy to define precisely who the outsiders and the insiders are. Since the populations of metropolitan areas are becoming increasingly diverse and mixed, a civic stratification can be identified among foreign residents in terms of legal status and recognised rights (Morris, 2002; Kraler and Bonizzoni, 2010). At the institutional level, the increasing complexity of immigration’s governance is characterised by two concurrent developments. On the one hand, the European Community has made the unprecedented move of abolishing internal borders, allowing the free movement of citizens and workers, and recognising various rights of citizenship, including political rights, for expatriate Europeans. This has given rise to what has been called ‘nested citizenship’ (Kivisto and Faist, 2007). On the other hand, local policies have acquired growing salience, as the arena in which public institutions meet ‘diverse’ people with their needs and aspirations. Large urban areas provide a laboratory for studying the key problems and possibilities stemming from so-called ‘superdiversity’ (Vertovec, 2007): contradictions and openings, unprecedented mixes and identity-related claims, and conflicts. Nowadays, possibly even more than in the past, metropolitan areas are perceived as emblematic of the tensions and conflicts surrounding the long-term settlement of immigrant minorities. They are settings where, in practical terms, adaptation, resistance and innovation take place on a daily basis. The multi-level governance of intractable policy issues (Schön and Rein, 1994), such as migrant integration, has become a widespread feature of the European political landscape (Scholten, 2012; Geddes, 2014). This trend implies a divergence between the so-called ‘national models’ of integration (for example, assimilation in France versus multiculturalism in UK), and the actual policies (Bertossi, 2011), especially at local level. 125

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

This was already noted some years ago in the case of France. Martiniello (1997), among others, highlighted the existence of a wide gap between the official positions taken at the national level, moulded by French Jacobinism and the rhetoric of secularism, and local practices, where public authorities implement segments of multiculturalist policies and do not hesitate to negotiate with representatives of ethnic and religious communities on, for example, places of worship. Comparatively speaking, Alexander (2003), in a study of 25 European urban contexts, has built on the idea of ‘national models’ of reference, while highlighting that local policies often deviate from them – among other things, because they must cope at the peripheral level with the failures of national policies. Against this background, one may wonder if similar divergences still occur today, amid increasing resistance to ethnic mixing and open mistrust of multiculturalist stances. The research on which this chapter draws was conducted between 2010 and 2011. It adopted the case study method to analyse immigrant policy provision in eight European cities, three of which were Italian: respectively, Brussels, Frankfurt, Madrid, Manchester and Marseille; Genoa, Florence and Verona (Ambrosini, 2012). The selection included two capitals and other medium-large cities. While the case of Madrid resembles the Italian ones in many ways, the other cities have more mature and stratified immigration settlements. The rationale behind the selection of these cities was that each of them was a promising observatory on broader national models of ethnocultural diversity management – at least as ideal-typical (if still influential) frames: Manchester for the British multicultural model; Frankfurt for the German post-guestworker model created by the immigration reform of 2000; Brussels for the mixed Belgian model, which mirrors both the country’s bilingualism and the influence of political models of the neighbouring states; Marseille for the persisting French ‘assimilative’ model; Madrid for a new country of immigration where the concept of ‘convivencia’ (‘living together’) is salient in public discourse. Within the Italian context, here I will consider only the case of Verona, a dynamic medium-sized city where the Northern League has ascended to power but the local economy has shown, at least until the 2008 recession and even afterwards, a substantial need for immigrant labour. A first result of the study is that in practice the correspondence between each city and the respective national model is increasingly contested and less relevant. This is due, first, to the irremediable internal differentiation of each national model (and of course, to the gap between discursive representations and actual policies in each of them: Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2009; for Italy, Çetin, 2012); second, to the significant spaces of autonomy emerging at a local level in the field of integration 126

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

and diversity policies. The latter issue, along with other cross-cutting commonalities, lies at the core of our comparative analysis. For each city, an in-depth literature review was conducted on the main aspects of local integration policies regarding immigrants and ethnic minorities, tracing their evolution over time and examining the most significant initiatives in detail. The study followed a common pattern adapted to the context in question, and then expanded on the most relevant areas at every local level. In practical terms, the analysis was built on site visits, meetings and in-depth interviews with civil servants, managers of local services, academics and representatives of associations. This source was supported by the documentary analysis of internet sources, scientific literature and relevant statistics. Overall, about 60 in-depth interviews were conducted.

Convergences and divergences between national and local scales of diversity governance In accordance with a large international literature, our empirical research confirms the existence of a wide range of approaches to the governance of diversity in multi-ethnic societies (see Alexander, 2003; Collett, 2011; Penninx et al, 2004). The current prevalence of a trend towards civic integration (Joppke, 2007) has not substantially challenged this variety – even more so if the governance of immigration is considered on a local scale (but see Gebhardt, 2016, on the influence of state-led civic integration programmes on city policies). How the national formulation of these approaches interacts with their local expression at urban level is a matter for empirical analysis. I now present the main results of our study on this issue. Among the cities that we studied, the most conscious and explicit divergence between the two scales of governance was exhibited by Frankfurt. For several years, the local government has been at the forefront of finding new approaches to dealing with immigrant populations (De Luca and Trotto, 2012). At the national level, it was only with the reform of 2000 that Germany officially acknowledged that it had become a country of immigration, but the German approach remains quite restrictive, even ‘prohibitive’ in terms of citizenship strategy, according to Goodman (2010): high barriers prevent access to full membership by aliens. On the contrary, since the 1980s the city of Frankfurt has adopted a more open approach, taking charge of the issues of discrimination, recognition and appreciation of cultural diversity. Salient in this forerunner policy has been the creation of a special office, AMKA (Office for Multicultural Affairs), which has emerged as a reference model for other German towns, and 127

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

also beyond Germany’s borders (Heckmann, 2010). The main weakness of this approach, however, regards the incongruity between voluntary innovations conceived at an urban level and institutional frameworks determined at higher levels, which restrict the scope of local activities. Emblematic of this is the high rate of education failures among minority students – an issue on which local policies exert only a minor influence. In other cities that we studied, political divergence between the national and the local level of immigration and diversity policies is less explicit and visible, but still significant. Marseille is a case in point. Here local policies do not openly distance themselves from the national rhetoric of secularism and avoidance of ethnic issues in the public arena. Even so, in ways that are little visible and typically unreported, local authorities deviate from the nationally-proclaimed directives. They tend to pragmatically recognise the distinctive social issues concerning relations with ethnic minorities; they seek to involve mediating figures from minority groups; and they engage in extensive negotiations with representatives of different versions of Islam on controversial matters such as the construction of a large mosque (De Luca, 2012; see also Borkert et al, 2007). The French national model of integration is then renegotiated at the peripheral level by emphasising local identity and practicing a kind of de facto multiculturalism. A significantly pragmatic, though not discursive, divergence between the national and the local can also be documented in the case of Manchester. In this large and ‘superdiverse’ urban area, local authorities have apparently followed the national government in formally abandoning the multiculturalist language (Boccagni, 2012a). They prefer now to emphasise social and community cohesion (Kalra and Kapoor, 2009), and tend to reduce the visibility given to social policies aimed at immigrant populations. But in reality what actually occurs is largely a restatement of the multiculturalist policies of the past using other labels and a different conceptual framework. Following Levey (2009, 92), it is possible to define Manchester’s policies as a case of ‘multiculturalism without culturalism’. In Manchester as elsewhere in the UK, the policies for the integration of immigrants, refugees and ethnic minorities seem threatened more by budgetary cuts than by an actual decline of the multiculturalist approach. In the case of Brussels (De Bernardis, 2012), the interaction between the national and local pressures underlying immigrant policies is made more complex by the unusual status of the Belgian capital: an officially bilingual metropolis, and an inherently internationalised one thanks to its role as the EU capital. Establishing a ‘national’ culture to be transmitted to new residents is therefore a particularly difficult task. Neo-assimilationist trends, however, are expressed through the emphasis on social cohesion and the obligation on new arrivals to learn one of the country’s official 128

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

languages. Nevertheless, the boundaries between ‘immigrants’ and ‘expats’ are not always easy to draw, especially when immigrants are EU citizens themselves. This is further complicated by the different emphases proposed by the two native linguistic communities. In any case, the celebration of cultural diversity through events involving the city is a prominent feature of the local political supply. It furnishes a low-cost, non-confrontational and widely appreciated form of multiethnic coexistence. The dialectic between national and local stances on immigrant integration is declined still differently – and in relatively less politicised terms – in the case of Madrid (Boccagni, 2012b). Here, interestingly, changes in the nation’s political majority have not significantly affected the mainstream approaches to immigrant integration. Initiatives have been undertaken by local political leaders in voluntary ways, within a framework where the distribution of tasks between the city and regional government is unclear. This entails a volatility of local policies. This problem is connected with Spain’s recent entry into the category of receiving countries. Here diversity is recognised mainly under the label of ‘intercultural’ policies, and the active participation of immigrants is pursued through consultative bodies and through the professionalisation of immigrant leaders in service delivery. Moreover, in Madrid, more than in any other city that we analysed, the economic recession has weighed simultaneously on integration processes and policies, giving easy justifications for reductions of funds and political commitment. Verona, as I will highlight in the sixth section, is a case where a national discourse hostile to immigrants and ethnic diversity has been echoed and reinforced by local policies overtly aimed at introducing more controls on immigrants and at excluding them from local welfare provisions. In Verona, not only multiculturalism, but also the recognition of the legitimacy of cultural differences has been questioned. In practice however, as I will show, the system of local services to immigrants has been only partially affected by the political change. Overall, our comparative analysis of the national–local policy relationship gainsays the supposed ‘death of multiculturalism’, especially when policy implementation is considered. While the multicultural approach has been declared unsuccessful, and to some extent discredited, in the stances of national political leaders, it is still adopted in various ways in the local urban contexts that we studied (see Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2009). However, it tends to be resumed in a more modest guise. This typically entails recognition and appreciation of cultural diversity, support for immigrant associations, and promotion of interfaith dialogue, together with the rejection of any explicitly (and cumbersomely) multiculturalist ideological frame. Policies aimed at encouraging immigrant integration are 129

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

re-proposed under less visible labels, including those of ‘social cohesion’ and ‘diversity’.

The rhetoric and practices of local welfare provision to immigrants and ethnic minorities The distance between political proposals and actual interventions is not a surprise. External constraints, conflicts and pressures from various interests and actors oblige decision makers to mediate and to reach compromises at various levels. In the field of migration policies, however, the gap between declarations and accomplishments (Schön and Rein, 1994) seems especially pronounced (Campomori, 2007). In the past, this divergence exhibited more usual patterns: despite promises to combat discrimination and a commitment to the equal dignity of people and cultural identities, the actual accomplishments typically remained limited. The promises of egalitarian commitment were not nourished by adequate resources and coherent political choices. Nowadays, the structuration of these policy divergences is made more complex by additional issues. As the mainstream political discourse has resumed its emphasis on assimilation, at least some symbolic aspects of local policies reflect these predominant feelings. Hence my contention of a prevailing continuity of contents of local policies for immigrants passes through an adaption of political framing of such policies. Notions such as community cohesion (Manchester), convivencia (‘living together’ – Madrid) or quartiers sensibles (‘high need areas’ – Marseille, Brussels) have much greater salience and discursive legitimation than the recognition of culture-based identities, affiliations and stances. Following a ‘de-ethnicised’ approach, social policies tend to target the residents of the most deprived areas as client categories with remarkable need profiles (single mothers, those who are long-term unemployed, pupils with learning difficulties, and so on), with no distinctive attention to immigrants or ethnic minorities as a significant part of those categories. Judging from our comparative study, the Madrid experience is a good case in point (Boccagni, 2012b). In regard to other aspects, the real policy provision in each of the cities that we studied has undergone various institutional adaptations, but it has maintained a basically multiculturalist subtext, broadly understood: features such as celebration of cultural diversity in urban life, public recognition of cultural and religious pluralism, and cooperation with immigrant associations and representatives, have kept their place in local policies. In all these respects, however, urban multiculturalism results in a more or less extensive spectrum of culturally-sensitive service provisions, rather 130

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

than in any radical strategy in regard to group-differentiated social rights. In terms of ideal-typical differentiation, one may then distinguish among different emphases and methods of presentation of the solutions adopted: a more daring and voluntaristic approach in Frankfurt; an inclusive but variable approach in Madrid; more cautious and careful action to prevent ethnic conflicts in Marseille; a pragmatic withdrawal which opts for a low profile in Manchester; a re-coding in neo-assimilationist language of the investments in the integration of immigrants in Brussels; a low-profile visibility and adaptive continuity in Verona. A selective use of public communication is also part of the gap between rhetoric and practice. All these local authorities are keen to emphasise the issues most likely to raise interest and gain consensus in the overall population, including natives. This typically results in the over-visibility of what can be termed ‘aesthetics of diversity’: ‘ethnic’ arts, music or food, which are presented as enriching the cultural endowment of the city. In the same sense, in some cases interreligious dialogue initiatives have been widely emphasised (for example, in Marseille), and religions tend to receive more public recognition than in the recent past. By contrast, more expensive interventions which may trigger perceptions of competition, allegations of welfare shopping, or conflicts between old and new residents tend to be toned down (see Zucchetti, 1999). If necessary, pro-immigrant interventions are justified on grounds of general interest which may meet a broader consensus. Measures against early school leaving, for instance, are more emphasised than support for students of immigrant origin; housing improvements in certain neighbourhoods are discursively more salient, and legitimate, than specific initiatives aimed at overcoming immigrant segregation. This communication option is not a new one; but it has been strengthened in the past decade (Zincone, 2009): at a time of a worsening political climate on immigration, in order to grant investments for the benefit of immigrants it has become even more necessary to present them as investments that meet general needs, and if possible as alternatives to the much-disliked multiculturalism. The concept of ‘social cohesion’ has become popular in political discourse at European level and in national and local policies (Grillo, 2005). However, our result suggests that it is often a broader umbrella under which to present measures that in fact benefit mainly ethnic minorities as provisions of general interest: from this point of view, many changes are more rhetorical than substantial; they regard more the political framing of policies than their actual contents.

131

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

A broader urban governance of immigrant diversity: the emerging role of civil society organisations The relationship between national and local policies, and the capacity of local policies to address and govern ethnic diversity is increasingly connected also to the multifaceted contribution of civil society organisations to local welfare provisions that address the needs of immigrants and ethnic minorities. The civil society category includes a broad range of bodies, ranging among formal NGOs, religious institutions, trade unions, immigrant and ethnic organisations, anti-racist and radical social movements. Their role may be important at several levels: from political voice to service delivery, as well as in the protection and advocacy of migrant and minority rights (Ambrosini and van der Leun, 2015). Even if their activities often do not have to do with multiculturalist stances, their prevalent cultural and political claims in favour of immigrants’ and asylum seekers’ rights, their protests against discrimination and exclusion, their practical support to undocumented people or ones with an uncertain legal status, pave the way to recognition of migrants’ diversities in urban life. Hence, it is true that neoliberal policies foster the outsourcing of social services to NGOs and other private providers. It is also true that restrictive policies often need to be softened by practical arrangements so as to prevent major human rights violations; and NGOs can fill this space (Castañeda, 2007). But civil society actors, especially when they form advocacy coalitions on behalf of migrants, are also political actors which participate in the public policy arenas. With their mix of discourses, demonstrations and services, they interact with local authorities, helping to shape local responses to immigrants and ethnic minorities issues. More directly when they are migrant associations, more indirectly when they are trade-unions, native NGOs, or religious institutions, their contribution to local governance supports a dynamic vision of cities’ populations, cultures and aspirations. Furthermore, on sensitive issues such as irregular immigration and asylum-seeking, various groups fighting for openness and respect for human rights oppose mobilisation in favour of border closures (see, for the US: Eastman, 2012; Hagan, 2008). Interestingly, local authorities can rely on these groups, or support their activities in various ways, in order to soften and to some extent circumvent the limitations created by national policies (Van der Leun and Bouter, 2015). Hence civil society organisations in several cases can be influential actors in allowing local authorities to evade restrictions fixed by national policies. In other cases, they pressurise local authorities to broaden or to change their approach to immigrant minorities and cultural diversities. 132

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

While public opinions and the political discourse are influenced by a drive to tighten border controls, organised groups active in the social and communicative fields can in their turn intervene in the public arena, raise specific cases and affect the production of (local) policies. As the Italian case has shown, their lobbying may offset the weak political citizenship of immigrants and combat restrictive policies (Zincone, 1999; 2011). In almost all the cities that we studied, the local authorities have adopted a broader approach to governance based on interaction and negotiation between decision makers and organised civil society – for the purposes of service delivery and sometimes, less obviously, in an urban planning perspective. In Germany, for instance, the large religious and union organisations are firmly embedded in the welfare system as providers of social services, and they are especially involved in the supply of many kinds of support to immigrants and refugees. Frankfurt is a clear example. We may cite the FIM (Frauenrecht Ist Menschenrecht (Social Consultancy for Foreign Women)) centre of the Diakonie network, which provides services to immigrant women in difficulties, among them ones without a residence permit, asylum seekers and victims of sexual exploitation. Another interesting case, as a mechanism of participatory urban governance, is Manchester’s Agenda 2010. This is a ten-year programme covering four areas (crime and public order; education; health and social care; employment and vocational training). The most remarkable aspect of the programme is the participation of civil society organisations – including associations representing immigrants and ethnic minorities – in the work groups set up for each area and guided by the relevant public authority. Also in Madrid CSOs play an important role in the local governance of immigration and ethnic diversity, and immigrant associations have been involved in consultative practices and services, even if in recent years the economic crisis has driven a retreat of public commitment in this field. Equally systematic forms of collaboration among public authorities, local CSOs and ethnic minorities’ associations have been documented in Brussels; or, at a different level, in the Marseille Esperance initiative promoted by the local government and involving different religious communities. For some aspects of local policies, the contribution of immigrant associations and NGOs has proved particularly important. The unpopular issue of the acceptance and protection of asylum seekers and irregular immigrants, for instance, is typically handed over to them, as has been reported in several countries.2 Moreover, what is important is that civil society organisations do not confine themselves to easing tensions between state sovereignty and the affirmation of universal human rights: the controversial issue of protecting irregular immigrants has in some cases given rise to forms of protest, advocacy movements, or mobilisations by 133

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

undocumented residents themselves (Nicholls, 2013), and especially in large cities, where numbers and concentration make it a more visible phenomenon. In our research, the case of Brussels is the most conspicuous one; but other studies have reported similar protests in other European cities, such as Paris and London (Chimienti, 2011). Here CSOs have acted in support of immigrants’ claims, which in turn constitute a salient feature of multicultural cities. Even when immigrants are at the forefront as spokespersons of campaigns for migrants’ rights, the support of national civil society is often highly influential because native actors can provide crucial resources such as financial means, legal advice and insider knowledge of national political cultures and institutions (Nicholls, 2013, 613). To a certain extent, they can even shape and overshadow claims of immigrants themselves (Nicholls, 2013, 615). To recap, the main local activities developed by civil society organisations can be grouped under five headings. The first covers the representation of immigrants’ interests in local bodies, consultations or other arenas where urban governments treat issues related to the settlement of ethnic minorities (Kosic and Triandafyllidou, 2005). Here mainly immigrant associations are involved, but also pro-immigrant NGOs and trade unions. This is possibly the most politically contentious of their functions, because the potential for CSOs (including the ethnic ones) to embody political representation, and their institutional legitimacy in doing so, are highly debated and context-dependent. Second, civil society organisations have been involved in several forms of political pressure in defence of immigrants’ rights, social demands, cultural and religious claims. This is of particular salience in countries, such as Italy, where immigrants do not enjoy voting rights, so that their weight in the political game is negligible. Third, local civil society – as a scattered set of native and ethnic-based organisations – has been remarkably active in advocacy, most notably against forms of discrimination enacted by local authorities, or against the use of demeaning language in the public sphere. Likewise, CSOs have generally played an important role in the fields of communication, education and public awareness-raising. Finally, CSOs should be factored into local policies on immigrants as key providers of services on behalf of public authorities or as independent providers, particularly in the case of irregular immigrants. What is important is that the relative significance of each of these functions is variable across the cities that we studied, as a reflection of their different historical and political trajectories of immigrant incorporation. In all these respects, however, both the local governance of ethnic diversity and the development of new ideas, projects and initiatives in the field, including multiculturalist stances, need to be appreciated in light of the growing involvement of civil society organisations. 134

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

The dark side: local policies for immigrants’ exclusion Local policies are not, however, only inclusive policies. Xenophobic tensions occur throughout Europe, as I have already mentioned, and they have taken root in many countries, even within democratic institutions and in local policies. Among the European cities studied, Marseille, Brussels and especially Verona are the ones most affected. A phenomenon that has acquired particular importance in Italy is the advent in recent years of local governments introducing measures openly hostile to immigrants and which oppose the interests and issues of the native population against those of foreign residents (Çetin, 2012). In our research, the city of Verona is a case in point. Here I analyse this case more in depth, as an example of opposition against what can be termed a multiethnic transformation of the urban landscape: an opposition against cultural diversity. In the wake of the new powers given to mayors by the so-called ‘security package’ passed by the national centre-right government in 2008, the city council of Verona has issued a significant number of ordinances aimed at regulating social behaviour: ordinances against begging, prostitution and the consumption of food in public spaces (Mauri, 2012). All the measures have been targeted, sometimes explicitly, on certain components of the immigrant population most immediately perceived as a nuisance. Another important piece of the mosaic of local policies is the attempt to introduce differential treatment in, and obstacles to, the access to services and local benefits, such as social housing. As regards religious pluralism, while in several European cities, despite resistance and difficulties (Maussen, 2009), dialogue is actively promoted, in Verona there was strong concern about control and enforcement regarding the local expressions of Islam and the opening of places of worship. Indeed, the local government had strongly opposed the establishment of a prayer hall for the Muslim minority. In the case of Verona, three main reasons for opposing the establishment of immigrant populations can be identified: fears regarding safety, competition for access to welfare benefits, and the defence of a real or perceived local cultural identity. On considering similar cases reported in other Northern Italian regions (Ambrosini, 2013a), it does not really matter that both the rules inspired by the security package, and the impediments to freedom of worship, have been repudiated by the courts, since these measures are primarily addressed to voters. Their purpose is to send out the message that the local government protects the insiders from the intrusion of outsiders, from their behaviour which is perceived as disruptive, from their cultural expressions which are deemed contradictory to local traditions, from competition 135

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

for the use of public resources and services. In this way, however, local policies promote and institutionalise the boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’, between residents of different origins sharing the same territory. In fact, these policies encourage separation and tension between majority and minority groups. At the same time, this basis of the issue of ethnic relations has provoked the reaction of the pro-immigrant coalition, supported by lawyers who have repeatedly taken the Verona administration to court – as they have done with several other towns in northern Italy – and they have obtained favourable judgements. The policies of exclusion are also a magnet for the mobilisation of social forces and for the formation of unusual alliances between actors that are very different but united by their struggle against ethnic discrimination. Vigilant civil societies and socially well-established actors that have taken up the immigrants’ cause alongside them, such as the Catholic Church and trade-unions, have provided vital defence against xenophobic tendencies. Furthermore, as I have already recalled, service delivery to immigrant populations has not been deeply affected by political change: some services now have new and less evident labels in which immigrants are not mentioned; other services work with less visibility and public support; yet others have been outsourced to local NGOs. But overall, the case of Verona confirms that it is easier to fight against multiculturalism in declarations than in actual policies, in public discourse than in service provision. Street-level bureaucracies often resist the implementation of restrictive or discriminatory policies (see, for the Netherlands, van der Leun, 2006). Civil society actors protest and involve public opinion in specific cases (see, for asylum seekers in Germany, Ellerman, 2006). Consequently, the case of Verona paradoxically confirms my general argument: even if in that city political rhetoric is particularly adversarial, actual policies for immigrants by and large have substantial continuity with the past. Structural factors, such as labour-market demand, social needs that cannot be easily ignored, resistance by civil servants, protest by civil society, and anti-discriminatory limitations by judicial power combine to explain the weak efficacy of exclusion policies in Verona and other northern Italian towns. I should stress, however, that in Europe, even in countries with long traditions of liberalism and openness, such as the Netherlands or Sweden, new populist and xenophobic political subjects are gaining political consensus. Such tensions may arise also at local level (Mahnig, 2004), and city governments can be active in implementing restrictive policies (Leerkes et al, 2012), even if local exclusion policies in Europe are an understudied issue (Ambrosini, 2013a). For instance, in Catalonia, in the past few years several local governments have taken positions similar to 136

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

those of the Italian cities governed by coalitions of the centre-right and where the Northern League has a strong influence (Burchianti and Zapata Barrero, 2012). Furthermore, Grillo (2005) sees in Europe and North America a desire to return to older ‘assimilative’ models of the city that explains contemporary criticism against multiculturalism. In twenty-first century Europe, the issue of the reception and treatment of the cultural diversity brought by immigrant populations is an increasingly controversial item on the political agenda.

Conclusion I can now again address the four questions that I initially introduced to discuss the present state of urban multiculturalism. The results of our research allow me to draw the following conclusions. First, the local level of policy-making remains relatively autonomous from the national level, despite the growing emphasis on border closure, the struggle against irregular immigration, and the demand for ‘civic integration’ by regular migrants and ethnic minorities. Second, multiculturalist practices persist in various ways in service provision to immigrants at local level, despite the rejection of the concept in mainstream (national) political discourse: other concepts, such as diversity or social cohesion, often take the place of multiculturalist stances, but in practice elements of continuity prevail. Third, civil society organisations have acquired a growing (if variable) salience in the governance of superdiverse cities: in various ways, in alliance with or in opposition to local governments, they generally support broader visions of cities, giving more legitimacy to ethnic and cultural diversities. Fourth, in some cases, especially where parties openly hostile to immigrants rule cities, policies of exclusion are targeted on immigrants and ethnic minorities; but also in these cases actual policies do not follow consistently the declared ones. Clearly apparent across the different urban settings is the relative autonomy of the local policy-making level, as opposed to the national one. Whatever the national framework of immigrant incorporation policies, the urban level needs to be appreciated as a policy-making field in itself. Moreover, it appears to be independent from several aspects of the declared national philosophies of integration. At a local level, public policy is necessarily more sensitive to the actual problems and social dynamics which result from the settlement of foreign-born populations than it is to principled statements. Of course, urban-level immigrant policies also pay tribute to the neo-assimilationist emphasis which pervades the current public discourse in Europe: while much of the last century’s multiculturalist language has been abandoned, the emphasis is now on objectives of social 137

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

cohesion and civic integration in receiving societies. At the same time, the real changes made to welfare services provision are generally more limited. At this level, the economic and financial crisis weighs more than any effective ‘backlash’ against multiculturalism: or to be more precise, it gives a stronger argument to the political intent to cut welfare services for immigrants, ethnic minorities or other weak groups (Collett, 2011). A more remarkable development instead consists in the discursive emphasis on mainstreaming as part of an apparently de-ethnicised welfare provision: at least at a communicative level, local authorities across the cities tend to emphasise the need to improve the welfare of the local society as a whole, while watering down any special measure for immigrants and ethnic minorities. However, emphasis on social cohesion or other general aims allows a provision of local welfare to immigrants and ethnic minorities for which it could be more difficult to achieve political consensus under more explicit and ‘multicultural’ labels. As regards the second question (multiculturalism), despite the declining political fortunes of multiculturalism as a political idiom and agenda, some local variants of it can still be documented under changing frameworks: in short, an inclusive and explicit multiculturalism in Frankfurt; a deemphasised and pragmatic one in Manchester; a composite, integrationist and celebratory one in Brussels; a de facto and tacit one in Marseille; a voluntary and fluctuating one in Madrid. Interestingly, ‘diversity’ has often taken the place of ‘multiculturalism’ as a label for projects and initiatives concerning ethnic and cultural minorities (Faist, 2009; Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2009; Boccagni, 2014). At the same time, the ‘aesthetics of diversity’ celebrating the musical, artistic and gastronomic contributions of minorities is often emphasised in local policies. This point requires further discussion. Local policies are generally unable to deal with major structural issues such as labour market discrimination, residential segregation, or the educational failure of ethnic minorities (Mahnig, 2004). The answers to these challenges require large-scale reforms at national level, and now the shortage of economic means and the lack of political consensus make these reforms hard to conceive. Locally, however, many projects and innovative measures tend to pursue specific improvements in the conditions of disadvantaged minorities and of ethnically segregated neighbourhoods, or to highlight their contribution to the enrichment and diversification of the city’s cultural life. In fact, initiatives to celebrate the multicultural face of cities are far more popular, even at the cost of encroaching on the realm of folklore. Making diversity an element of attraction – or at least a ‘commonplace’ one (Wessendorf, 2011) – has even become an objective of urban marketing campaigns. While immigrant neighbourhoods are often 138

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

seen as icons of degradation and segregation, in certain circumstances – and once properly gentrified – ethnic neighbourhoods can become tourist attractions, leisure-time destinations, and cultural experiences which are close to home while reproducing the charm of distant worlds (Rath, 2007).3 Third, urban immigration policymakers are increasingly oriented to alliance-building as a way to mediate among restrictive national policies, budget cutbacks and local phenomena seen only as intractable issues of security and public order. The connection with social forces and organised civil society actors is a recurrent feature of both policy-building and service provision. Particularly thorny issues, such as the needs of asylum seekers or unauthorised immigrants, require the formation of relational networks and strategic alliances among different actors. On the other hand, the political role of movements and associations, including immigrant networks, that demand respect for human rights and the widening of reception policies should not be forgotten: civil society organisations not only cooperate with local governments but also criticise them and support new issues and claims on immigrants’ and minorities’ rights. Clearly, civil society organisations are deeply diverse, ranging from religious institutions to radical social movements, from established trade-unions to immigrant networks: but in different ways most of them spread through urban life values and prospects linked to liberal visions of ethnic diversity. Overall, a focus on the urban level of immigrant policies clearly points to a variable, if generally significant, persistence of multiculturalism in Europe – at various levels: as a pragmatic recognition of cultural differences, as an involvement of immigrant representatives and associations in public arenas, as a celebration of the ‘aesthetic of diversity’ in urban life, and as an adaption of welfare service provision. Much more contentious, however, are the prospects of multiculturalism as a public idiom and a political project. At a discursive level, multiculturally-oriented claims are arguably in need of an innovative language and of new ways to achieve re-legitimisation, in a political and social context which appears more hostile than in the past, but where ongoing social processes enhance local diversities and the need to govern them. The emerging contribution of civil society, in this respect, is of key importance for improving cultural acceptance of diversity and building a broader governance of superdiverse cities. On the other hand, local policies can also become devices of exclusion which worsen the general framework of political restrictions against immigration and cultural minorities. Not only at the national level does immigration now rank high on the political agenda: also at local level it can be the object of symbolic and political conflicts. And at the local level, 139

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

anti-immigrant political actors can more easily win democratic elections and achieve power. Local policies of exclusion, political conflicts and judicial controversies such as those identified in Northern Italy (Çetin, 2012), or in the United States (Chand and Schreckhise, 2014; Varsanyi, 2010) could spread across Europe. Also for this reason, multiculturalist policies should be expressed in a new language and within a new conceptual framework. From this point of view, the concept of diversity is clearly of paramount importance; recalling Faist (2009), it is now more accepted than multiculturalism. Furthermore, it can foster alliances with other ‘diverse’ groups, such as religious or linguistic minorities. In the present European political landscape, diversity policies could recover and even enhance several multiculturalist stances, shaping them into a new cultural framework. Notes 1 The author thanks Paolo Boccagni and Francesca Campomori for their cooperation and suggestions. 2 See, on the Dutch case, Engbersen and Broeders, 2009; on Germany, Lutz, 2011; on the US, Hagan, 2008; Fernández-Kelly, 2012. 3 This may entail, as pointed out by Zukin in particular (1998), a ‘commodification of diversity’ which, while fictitious and instrumental, has the merit of treating minority cultures and ethnicised neighbourhoods as economic resources for the city. References Albertazzi, D. and McDonnell, D. (2008) Twenty-first century populism, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Alexander, M. (2003) Local policies toward migrants as an expression of Host–Stranger relations, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 29, no 3, 411–30. Ambrosini, M. (ed) (2012) Governare città plurali, Milan: FrancoAngeli. Ambrosini, M. (2013a) ‘We are against a multi-ethnic society’: Policies of exclusion at the urban level in Italy, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 36, no 1, pp 136–55. Ambrosini, M. (2013b) Irregular migration and invisible welfare, Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan. Ambrosini, M. (2015) NGOs and health services for irregular immigrants in Italy: When the protection of human rights challenges the laws, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, vol 13, no 2, pp 116–34. Ambrosini, M. and van der Leun, J. (2015) Implementing human rights: Civil society and migration policies, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, vol 13, no 2, pp 103–15. 140

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

Antonsich, M. (2016) International migration and the rise of the ‘civil’ nation, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1155980 Balibar, E. (2012) Strangers as enemies, Mondi Migranti, vol 6, no 1, pp 7–25. Bauböck, R., Ersbøll, E., Groenendijk, K. and Waldrauch H. (eds) (2006) Acquisition and loss of nationality: Policies and trends in 15 European states, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Bertossi, C. (2011) National models of integration in Europe, American Behavioral Scientist, vol 55, no 12, pp 1561–80. Boccagni, P. (2012a) Dal multiculturalismo alla coesione di comunità? Il caso di Manchester, in M. Ambrosini (ed) Governare città plurali, pp 69–97, Milan: FrancoAngeli. Boccagni, P. (2012b) Negoziando i confini della nuova convivenza multietnica. Il caso di Madrid, in M. Ambrosini (ed) Governare città plurali, pp 149–69, Milan: FrancoAngeli. Boccagni, P. (2014) The difference diversity makes: A principle, a lens, an empirical attribute for majority–minority relations, in T. Matejskova and M. Antonsich (eds) Governing through diversity, pp 21–38, Basingstoke, Palgrave Borkert, M., Bosswick, W., Heckmann, F. and Lüken-Klaßen, D. (2007) Local integration policies for migrants in Europe, Cities for Local Integration Policy and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, www.eurofound.europa. eu/pubdocs/2006/31/en/1/ef0631en.pdf Burchianti, F. and Zapata Barrero, R. (2012) Intolerant discourses about migrants in Catalan politics, European project ‘Accept pluralism’, Florence: European University Institute, www.academia.edu/1797857/ Intolerant_Discourses_about_Migrants_in_Catalan_Politics_report Campomori, F. (2007) Il ruolo di policy making svolto dagli operatori dei servizi per gli immigrati, Mondi migranti, vol 1, no 3, pp 83–106. Caponio, T. and Borkert, M. (eds) (2010) The local dimension of migration policy-making, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Castañeda, H. (2007) Paradoxes of providing aid: NGOs, medicine, and undocumented migration in Berlin, Germany, PhD Dissertation, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Graduate College. Castles, S. (2004) Why migration policies fail?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 27, no 2, pp 205–27. Cento Bull, A. (2010) Addressing contradictory needs: The Lega Nord and Italian immigration policy, Patterns of Prejudice, vol 44, no 5, pp 411–31.

141

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Çetin, E. (2012) Exclusionary rhetoric expansionist policies?, Compas, Working Paper 95, Oxford: University of Oxford. Chand, D.E. and Schreckhise W.D. (2014) Secure communities and community values: Local context and discretionary immigration law enforcement, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 41, no 10, pp 1621–43. Chimienti, M. (2011) Mobilization of irregular migrants in Europe, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 34, no 8, pp 1338–56. Collett, E. (2011) Immigrant integration in Europe in a time of austerity, Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. De Bernardis, A. (2012) Una capitale cosmopolita alla sfida dell’integrazione: Il caso di Bruxelles, in M. Ambrosini (ed) Governare città plurali, pp 101–24, Milan: FrancoAngeli. De Luca, V. (2012) Multiculturalismo implicito come pratica locale. Il caso di Marsiglia, in M. Ambrosini (ed) Governare città plurali, pp 190–212, Milan: FrancoAngeli. De Luca, V. and Trotto, C. (2012) Politiche locali avanzate in un contesto restrittivo: Il caso di Francoforte, in M. Ambrosini (ed) Governare città plurali, pp 125–48, Milan: FrancoAngeli. Eastman, C.L.S. (2012) Shaping the immigration debate: Contending civil societies on the US–Mexico border, Boulder, CO: FirstForum Press. Ellermann, A. (2006) Street-level democracy: How immigration bureaucrats manage public opposition, West European Politics, vol 29, no 2, pp 293–309. Engbersen, G. and Broeders, D. (2009) The State versus the Alien: Immigration control and strategies of irregular immigrants, West European Politics, vol 32, no 5, pp 867–85. Faist, T. (2009) Diversity – a new mode of incorporation?, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 32, no 1, pp 171–90. Fernández-Kelly, P. (2012) Rethinking the deserving body: Altruism, markets, and political action in health care provision, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 35, no 1, pp 56–71. Foner, N. (2007) How exceptional is New York? Migration and multiculturalism in the empire city, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 999–1023. Geddes, A. (2014) Migration in European governance, in A. Payne and N. Phillips (eds) Handbook of the International Political Economy of Governance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gebhardt, D. (2016) When the state takes over: Civic integration programmes and the role of cities in immigrant integration, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 42, no 5, pp 742–58.

142

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

Goodman, S.W. (2010) Integration requirements for integration’s sake?, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 36, no 5, pp 753–72. Grillo, R. (2005) Backlash against diversity?, Compas, Working Paper 14, Oxford: University of Oxford. Hagan, J.M. (2008) Migration miracle: Faith, hope and meaning on the undocumented journey, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heckmann, F. (2010) Recent developments of integration policy in Germany and Europe, EFMS Papers, 4, www.efms.unibamberg.de/ pdf/efms%20paper%202010-4.pdf Joppke, C. (2007) Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe, West European Politics, vol 30, no 1, pp 1–22. Kalra, V. and Kapoor, N. (2009) Interrogating integration, segregation and community cohesion, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 35, no 9, pp 1397–415. Kivisto, P. and Faist, T. (2007) Citizenship: Discourse, theory and transnational prospects, Malden (MA): Blackwell. Kosic, A. and Triandafyllidou, A. (2005) Active civic participation of immigrants in Italy, Country Report for the European project POLITIS, www. unioldenburg.de/politis-europe Kraler, A. and Bonizzoni, P. (2010) Gender, civic stratification and the right to family life, International Review of Sociology, vol 20, no 1, 181–7. Leerkes, A., Varsanyi, M. and Engbersen, G. (2012) Local limits to migration control: Practices of selective migration policing in a restrictive national policy context, Police Quarterly, vol 15, no 4, pp 446–75. Levey, G.B. (2009) What is living and what is dead in multiculturalism, Ethnicities, vol 9, no 1, pp 75–93. Lutz, H. (2011) The new maids, London: ZED Books. Mahnig, H. (2004) The politics of minority–majority relations: How immigrant policies developed in Paris, Berlin and Zurich, in R. Penninx, K. Kraal, M. Martiniello and S. Vertovec (eds) Citizenship in European cities, pp 17–38, Aldershot: Ashgate. Martiniello, M. (1997) Sortir des ghettos culturels, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. Mauri, E. (2012) Tra retoriche securitarie e integrazione di fatto: Il caso di Verona, in M Ambrosini (ed) Governare città plurali, pp 262–91, Milan: FrancoAngeli. Maussen, M. (2009) Constructing Mosques: The governance of Islam in France and the Netherlands, Amsterdam: Amsterdam School for Social Science Research. Modood, T. (2007) Multiculturalism: A civic idea, Cambridge: Polity Press.

143

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Morris, L. (2002) Managing migration: Civic stratification and migrants rights, London: Routledge. Mouritsen, P. (2012) The resilience of citizenship traditions: Civic integration in Germany, Great Britain and Denmark, Ethnicities, vol 13, no 1, pp 86–109. Nicholls, W.J. (2013) Fragmenting citizenship: Dynamics of cooperation and conflict in France’s immigrant rights movement, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 36, no 4, pp 611–31. Penninx, R. and Martiniello, M. (2007) Processi di integrazione e politiche (locali), Mondi Migranti, vol 1, no 3, pp 31–59. Penninx, R., Kraal, K., Martiniello, M. and Vertovec, S. (eds) (2004) Citizenship in European cities, Aldershot: Ashgate. Prins, B. and Slijper, B. (2002) Multicultural society under attack: Introduction, Journal of International Migration and Integration, vol 3, no 3–4, pp 313–28. Rath, J. (2007) The transformation of ethnic neighborhoods into places of leisure and consumption, IMES working paper 144, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Ruzza, C. and Fella, S. (2009) Re-inventing the Italian Right, London: Routledge. Scholten, P.W.A. (2012) Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies, Policy Sciences, vol 46, no 3, pp 217–36. Schön, A.D. and Rein, M. (1994) Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies, New York: Basic Books. Van der Leun, J. (2006) Excluding illegal migrants in The Netherlands: Between national policies and local implementation, West European Politics, vol 29, no 2, pp 310–26. Van der Leun, J. and Bouter, H. (2015) Gimme shelter: Inclusion and exclusion of irregular immigrants in Dutch civil society, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, vol 13, no 2, pp 135–55. Varsanyi, M.V. (ed) (2010) Taking local control: Immigration policy activism in US cities and states, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54. Vertovec, S. and Wessendorf, S. (eds) (2009) The multiculturalism backlash, London: Routledge. Wessendorf, S. (2011) Commonplace diversity and the ‘ethos of mixing’, Compas, Working Paper 91, Oxford: University of Oxford. Wihtol de Wenden, C. (2009) La globalisation humaine, Paris: Press Universitaires de France.

144

Superdiversity, multiculturalism and local policies

Zincone, G. (ed) (1999) Illegality, enlightenment and ambiguity: A hot Italian recipe, in M. Baldwin-Edwards and J. Arango (eds), Immigrants and the informal economy in Southern Europe, pp 43–82, London: Frank Cass. Zincone, G. (ed) (2009) Immigrazione: segnali di integrazione, Bologna: Mulino . Zincone, G. (2011) The case of Italy, in G. Zincone, R. Penninx and M. Borkert (eds) Migration policymaking in Europe, pp 247–90, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Zucchetti, E. (ed) (1999) Enti locali e politiche per l’immigrazione, Milan, Quaderni Ismu, n 3. Zukin, S. (1998) Urban lifestyles, Urban Studies, vol 35, no 5–6, pp 825–39.

145

CHAPTER SEVEN

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance: the case of inner-city Lisbon Nuno Oliveira and Beatriz Padilla

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to analyse how local urban governance has come to incorporate migration-driven superdiversity in policies, mainly in the realm of mixed cultural and economic development policies. To do this, we use the case of the Mouraria neighbourhood in Lisbon, arguing that it is a site where a number of strategies have been identified to work towards new forms of accommodating old and new diversities to produce a specific cosmopolitan sense based on a ‘diversity advantage’ approach. In the context of an ‘urban turn’ in migration studies (Çağlar, 2015), migrants’ trajectories and practices are being progressively analysed in the intersection of global dynamics and local policies, structures and institutions. The shift in focus within migration scholarship from the national towards subnational levels signals a growing interest in the local as a socio-spatial context where practices, social relations and power networks take place. How migrants relate to this array of factors in the urban environment has been highlighted by a number of studies (HadjAbdou, 2014; Çağlar and Schiller, 2011; Alexander, 2007; Schiller and Çağlar, 2015). There is still, however, a need to relate these approaches to the so-called superdiverse urban settings looking at their relationship with new urban governance approaches based on the entrepreneurial city model (Harvey, 2001). Given that migration scholars have urged us to consider a greater diversity in these settings (Vertovec, 2007; Nowicka and Vertovec, 2014), what is still missing is an explicit link between the new social conditions and urban power hierarchies, social configurations and practices, in short, between superdiversity and urban governance. Central to the new European model for managing diversity is the idea of ‘diversity advantage’ (Wood and Landry, 2008). Basically, this concept encapsulates the idea that diversity should be seen as a resource to be harnessed. It is intrinsically linked to cities’ innovative policies and to economic comparative advantage whenever diversity is utilised as an asset (Wood and Landry, 2008, 12). 146

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

This chapter tries to understand how such linkages have come about in Lisbon, highlighting three urban strategies: de-ethnicisation of superdiversity and urban growth policies, aestheticisation of diversity and the rationale of the encounter, and place marketing and city branding. We use Mouraria in inner-city Lisbon as case study where one can grasp these three strategies working together to render a new model of city governance where the incorporation of migration-driven cultural dimensions (material and immaterial) has provided a linchpin of urban development strategies. Lisbon development guidelines, like other European cities, signal a shift to diversity policies couched in urban governance semantics and strategies. Thus, in an effort to theorise ‘the relationship between place, migration and globalization to capture the differing ways migrants become part of the city-making processes’ (Çağlar, 2014, 8) we explore how in Lisbon, urban policies and initiatives have accommodated cultural diversity entangled with economic development in a superdiverse neighbourhood. The first section of this chapter is concerned with the theoretical discussion on superdiversity and its links to urban governance. In the second section, we present our case study including its most relevant features. The third section addresses what we consider to be the three main axes in contemporary forms of urban governance as played out in Mouraria. We conclude by offering some critical reflections on these new forms of urban governance in a superdiverse neighbourhood in which economic development and market oriented logics of urban policies are constructed based on a de-ethnicised understanding of ethno-cultural diversity.

Superdiversity and the shift towards urban governance The inclusion of diversity in local governance and planning has aroused the interest of a number of scholars (Fincher et al, 2014; Sandercock, 2003; Tasan-Kok et al, 2013; Keith, 2005). Their analyses express the conviction that diversity is manifested in the urban space through the encounter and negotiation of differences. Due to the growing social and cultural heterogeneity of the migratory flows, diversity is now more complex (Vertovec, 2007). In terms of migratory phenomena, this means that people do not simply belong to distinct ethnic groups but that the densification of migration patterns corresponds to a multiplicity of social belongings and statutes that intersect with each other. Vertovec termed this contemporary phenomenon ‘superdiversity’. Superdiversity has been associated with both negative and positive aspects. On the problematic side, it has been tied to economically deprived territories (Robinson, 2007; Phillimore, 2013). On the positive side, its role has been cast as an asset which can boost cosmopolitan visions and 147

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

strategies (Cully, 2009; Rath and Hall, 2007) and foster the ‘diversity advantage’ (Wood and Landry, 2008), inducing public policies and private interventions in the field of cultural diversity in specific social and urban contexts (Oliveira and Padilla, 2012). This view assumes the growing significance of space in the incorporation of migrants and peoples of different ethnic backgrounds at the local level. In fact, many authors recognise an epistemic resignificance of the local, placing the urban local space at the heart of the analysis (Conradson and Latham, 2005; Nathan, 2011; Çağlar and Schiller, 2011). Indeed, questions associated with national models focusing upon the integration of immigrants have been increasingly replaced by enquiries around local space as the unit of analysis (Wessendorf, 2013; Wise and Velayutham, 2010; Amin, 2002). This shift from the national to the local helps mitigate the abstract nature of centralised state policies by turning the attention to policies implemented by local governments and their effectiveness (Uitermark, 2012; Grillo, 2000; Garbaye, 2002). As a result of this trend, the macro focus is on the wane while community space and local policies are in the ascent, allowing other approaches to diversity to be identified (compare Vertovec, 2007; Schiller, 2014). Meanwhile, diversity in the city nowadays is assumed as an internal feature of planning and urban renewal projects, above all because it involves the level of its inhabitants’ inter-subjective and negotiated relationships alongside questions of the recognition of their identities and justice in the occupation of public space (Sandercock, 2003; Fainstein, 2010; Fincher and Iveson, 2008). Within the rationale of constructing a desirable urban cosmopolitanism, learning to live with the other becomes a fundamental skill. Urban governance authorities have to balance between containing racist and intolerant manifestations and enhancing the potentialities of the presence of diverse populations (Syrett and Sepulveda, 2012). Although research has been inclined to identify a specific ethos in the interpersonal relations in superdiverse places (Wessendorf, 2013; Wise and Velayutham, 2010; Berg and Sigona, 2013) less attention has been payed to urban governance mechanisms and strategies. Indeed, this has proved a sparser line of research and one mainly focused on economic or legal and statutory aspects (Syrett and Sepulved, 2012; 2011; Uitermark et al, 2005; Neill and Schwedler, 2007). Yet, a number of programmes across Europe have set out a blueprint for accommodating cultural diversity having at its core the idea of territorial competitiveness and cultural innovation. Given that the main facets of the ‘diversity advantage’ model are the positive contribution of diversity for the invigoration of cities, its innovative capacity and its economic contribution, this model sits alongside existing views of culture understood as an asset (Evans and Foord, 2003). 148

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

Culture cast as creativity (or commodified) is inherently considered to be part of the urban economic development. Landry (2008) and Florida (2002) have championed the vision that diversity brings economic growth by preparing the conditions for receiving a plurality of cultural values adjusted to the new creative class. The views on the so-called diversity dividend (Cully, 2009; Syrett and Sepulveda, 2011) or diversity advantage (Wood and Landry, 2008) share the presupposition that diversity is a source of comparative advantage. Across urban settings, a number of strategies are being applied by city boosters ranging from city-branding to attract investment and tourism through to the enhancement of ethnic commerce. Such strategies have been mainly pursued within the context of the cultural quarter (Keith, 2005, chapter 7). Commodification of culture and aesthetisation of urban environments are weaved together in the new urban landscape. Accordingly, diversity can be commodified through tourism, strategies to build the ‘creative city’ and approximations between ethnically identified and gentrified places (Fincher et al, 2014). Following this line of thought, it is important to understand how cultural heterogeneity is symbolically, strategically and discursively appropriated so that diversity can be turned into an advantage and a resource. An example of this would be by understanding how it captures urban renovation and upscaling strategies. A number of contributions emphasise the differentiation of diversity and its new role in the urban economy and planning. In the case of Mouraria, Costa (2011) addresses the issue of the ethnic economy, coining the term ‘ethnocultural production system’. Such a system entails the interlinking of ethnic reference markets with new cultural and political dynamics. This approach pays much attention to markets and its ethnic composition, specifically to immigrant entrepreneurship. We contend that this perspective overlooks other relevant aspects of discourses and practices of urban governance. To be sure, urban governance mechanisms, although not necessarily economic or market oriented, are also driven by economic strategies, in particular the entrepreneurial city model. But these are broader than processes materialised in ethnic reference markets. We argue that in order to fully consider the place of cultural diversity in urban governance strategies one should pay attention to the interrelated strategies of de-ethnicisation, space advantage and commodification of culture that take place simultaneously and not just ethnic market arrangements.

Mouraria: diversification patterns in a territory of migrations The Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA) has the highest concentration of immigrants in Portugal, over half of the total foreign population live there. 149

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Following the economic crisis, immigration rates declined (Padilla and Ortiz, 2012), but settlement patterns of metropolitanisation have remained unchanged. Even if rapid demographic decline and aging population in Lisbon has led to persistent negative natural growth, migration has counterbalanced a steeper decline. Migrants concentrate either in the peripheral rings around LMA or in some of the inner-city historical neighbourhoods, out of which, Mouraria is the most emblematic. Located in the heart of the historic district of Lisbon, Mouraria is part of the recently created parish council of Santa Maria Maior. Most of the construction, dating from before 1919, resembles the old Moorish quarter, densely built of two- to three-story buildings.1 Without doubt, Mouraria embodies superdiversity most than any other urban space in the city, with unique and fast changing characteristics: a) it hosts the largest proportion of foreigners from all over the world, who follow different faiths (Catholics, Muslims, several Evangelical churches, Hindus), b) it hosts local residents of different backgrounds in terms of generations, occupation, socio-economic status, educational attainment, among others, c) it hosts Erasmus and international students/scholars, artists and professionals, many from EU countries. According to the 2011 census, Mouraria has a population of 4,406 inhabitants. Fifty-three per cent of national residents are aged 65 or over. Migrants comes from 60 different countries, representing 23.4 per cent of the residents, and tending to be younger than nationals: only 8 per cent are 65 years or older while 19 per cent are 25 years or younger.2 Mouraria has one of the highest rates of newcomers (about 22 per cent of the residents were new in 2011). Among migrants, people of Asian background make up 61 per cent of the foreign population, including those of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Nepalese origin with different degrees of recency. In addition to Asians, the neighbourhood is also home to people from Africa (14.2 per cent), Europe (14.6 per cent) and America (9.4 per cent) Over time, Mouraria has become a territory of increasing ethnic, religious, cultural and class diversity, driven by a multiplicity of migrant trajectories intertwined with a variety of national residents who uphold alternative ways of life. The interweaving of these characteristics makes Mouraria a super-diverse space (Vertovec, 2007). Cultural diversity is not new but it has gained visibility recently. Since the 1970s, migrants have settled in Mouraria, either as residents or traders, because of the affordable prices of rundown housing and incentives for starting up businesses in commercial infrastructures. Successive migration inflows have brought further ethnic and cultural diversity. It began with post-colonial migration from the Indian subcontinent who opened businesses in the Almirante Reis-Martim Moniz hub. They 150

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

were later followed by Africans and more recently by Chinese, Eastern European, Brazilian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Nepalese populations, as business owners, as co-ethnic employees, or because they were attracted by affordable housing. Simultaneously, Erasmus students, other EU citizens and autochthonous residents who enjoy alternative lifestyles, socalled diversity seekers, have also moved into the neighbourhood. The diversification of diversity is present in its social and ethnic composition. Mouraria is also a territory shaped by demographic, economic and social asymmetries, thus it is a priority area of intervention according to Lisbon City Hall, attracting 30 per cent of the parish social programmes. In addition to migrant and elderly populations, there are groups generally defined as vulnerable including people who are homeless, prostitutes and drug addicts. Mouraria has been the object of urban regeneration and revitalisation policies, conceived under the overarching slogan of ‘requalify the past to build the future’, involving changes in both buildings and infrastructure (public works) and in the social fabric of the neighbourhood (social programs). In the case of public works, interventions encompassed the requalification of the public spaces which altogether would improve the neighbourhood in terms of touristic and cultural routes, spaces for leisure and public conviviality, and also creating an intercultural corridor. These interventions were financed with funds from the EU. In the case of social interventions, the so-called Community Development Programme of Mouraria (PDCM) was designed to accompany the above-mentioned structural reforms. This programme was funded by the participatory budget of the municipality in which 16 local associations worked in partnership. These policies were also anchored upon ‘cultural diversity’, given that migrants are to a large extent responsible for bringing economic dynamics to the neigbourhood and play an important role in local trade and businesses. While Chinese people dominate the wholesale trade, Southeast Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Nepalese) populations own and work mainly in retailing. There has been a sharp increase in the retail trade due to expanding immigration networks. Hence, Mouraria is a place of contrasts, of mixed encounters between diverse neighbours, tourists and bystanders and the object of policy interventions striving to build on the positives advantages in an effort to override problems and weaknesses. As Tulumello (2016, 126) argues ‘Nowadays, the characterization of a traditional bairro (neighbourhood) and a “super-diverse” nature coexist in the identity of Mouraria’. In terms of methodology, the chapter combines documentary analysis of official documents seen as blueprints of policy narratives and fieldwork carried out in the framework of the Project Convivial Cultures and Superdiversity,3 during 2010–12, with additional follow151

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

up research.4  Qualitative methods involved multi-sited ethnography (comparing with other city and neighbourhoods) using a sociological orientation (Nadai and Maeder, 2009). Fieldwork included participant observation in the Mouraria neighbourhood and 21 semi-structured interviews with key actors such as public officials both at the political and technical level, cultural entrepreneurs, association leaders, neighbours and business owners. Additionally, we draw from participant observations held in other settings: planning sessions of an intercultural festival organised by the city hall, and the second and third editions of this intercultural event (Todos) which implied gathering ethnographic field notes. Regarding the analysis of public policies narratives, we included the Lisbon’s municipality strategic papers for urban development and renewal, as well as the specific programme delineated for the neighbourhood named Development Programme of Mouraria (PDCM). These documents are compared and contrasted with the discourses of public officials (authorities and technical staff) as well the discourses of other actors such as neighbours, business owners and cultural programmers. Observation grids and interview guides were constructed, taking into account the array of different stakeholders involved and then completed systematically as we viewed interactions. NVivo software was used for coding, using an inductive strategy to identify themes. Once identified, themes were checked against the data across sources to identify inconsistencies. Codes were assigned according to reiterative patterns in the organisation of texts. We have linked textual analysis with social processes seeking to shed light both on social dynamics and actors’ understandings and reproduction of these processes.

Findings We divide this section in three parts articulated around the local development strategy in the Mouraria neighbourhood and the way it incorporates cultural diversity. The first is dedicated to the municipality’s strategy and the meanings attributed to cultural diversity, the second to the processes of aestheticising ethnic diversity and the promotion of the rationale of the encounter; the third, to tourism, place marketing and branding of the city. None of these factors act in isolation; when associated, a perception of the diversity advantage is created but does not result from the simple fact of a diverse space, but instead from mutually strengthening each other as ‘advantage’ conditions. The following analysis emphasising the discourse of actors and planning strategies highlights these new understandings and the way they are incorporated in the dynamics of local governance. 152

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

De-ethnicisation and urban growth policies

For two decades, Portuguese national authorities have upheld an intercultural model. This principle is developed around the ‘acceptance of the cultural specificities of the different communities and the promotion of interaction between them’.5 In fact, Portugal never adopted a multicultural model but has implemented a policy openly guided by intercultural dialogue since 2005 which has gained consistency since then. A key aspect of this line of thought is that differences cannot be divided up in accordance with a supposed ethnic belonging but are transversal across groups. The reluctance at the institutional level to divide up groups on the basis of ethnicity became evident with the refusal to create ethnic categories for administrative purposes. Lisbon City Council subscribes the same paradigm in its strategy. The notion of interculturality upheld by the city council also rejects the concept of ethnic minorities in both its conceptual and empirical dimension. Indeed, the approach adopted by the executive considers the neighbourhoods as fundamental operative units and, according to the City Council, it is a mistake to speak of minorities in neighbourhoods densely populated by immigrants while they outnumber national residents. Accordingly, ‘when we look at representativeness at the urban level, and we do not measure the city on the basis of the city, but by the neighbourhood, these minorities are sometimes not minorities at all’ (Policy officer, Lisbon Municipality). It is according to this rationale that the Municipal Council for Interculturality and Citizenship (CMIC) of the Lisbon City Council, where the immigrant associations and other organisations are represented strives to have a cross-cutting membership. Headed by the councillor for social affairs, the council does not aim for ethnicised representation but follows the principle of including organisations with plural representation and that work in diverse intervention areas. In 2008, as part of the commemorations of the European Year for Intercultural Dialogue, a specific guideline was defined for the Lisbon municipality marked by a set of initiatives promoting the theme. Moreover, the importance of cultural diversity and the assumption of an intercultural matrix tied to urban development were highlighted in the objectives for the 2020 strategy.6 Both the entrepreneurial nature of the various immigrant communities and their potential as tourist and cultural attractions are identified as objectives of urban growth. The idea of integrating cultural diversity into the daily routines of city life is clearly visible in the actions of the municipality. It can be seen immediately in the Cultural Strategy for Lisbon, where cultural diversity is a cross-cutting dimension emerging in policies towards local requalification, employability and culture and the city 153

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

image: ‘Foster multicultural and ethnic activities and entrepreneurship as a means to renew the urban fabric…Values social cohesion, cosmopolitism, creativity, tolerance, as a multicultural city, a place of great ethnic diversity and mingling of cultures, nations, languages.’7 Then, cultural diversity is promoted through the support given to trade and ethnic entrepreneurship as well as through the emphasis given to the cosmopolitan image and the convergence of cultures. The City Council had been intentionally publicising the intercultural aspect of the city. In the words of a cultural producer involved in the studied intercultural festival, ‘there was…great urgency in making an event where interculturalism was present and that Lisbon could be claimed as a city also interested in interculturalism’ (Cultural entrepreneur). Mouraria, in need of regeneration brings together the needed qualities, thus has become a crucial part of the city space for the pursuit of this strategy. Lisbon’s acceptance to the Network of Intercultural Cities of the Council of Europe in 2011 was announced during the intercultural festival, Todos (Oliveira and Padilla, 2012). Moreover, Mouraria was one of the European areas chosen to launch the Community Based Results Accountability (CBRA) pilot within the broader strategy for Intercultural Cities (Brunson, 2013). In support, the Mayor’s office was temporary established in the neighbourhood to show his strong political commitment to the project and to meet one important criterion for accession. There is a close link between the superdiverse nature of certain spaces and the cross-European strategies fostering the uniformisation of urban governance models. De-ethnicisation has become an essential component in this uniformisation effort not the least because its applicability standards are based on diversity advantage organisational logics. Giving that what is central in this approach is intercultural exchange and not the recognition of differences (Wood and Landry, 2008, 11) de-essencialising group belonging becomes part of policy and practice. Aestheticisation of diversity and the rationale of the encounter

Aestheticisation as part of urban cultural policies is functional for local sustainability. Depending on how people are involved in urban renewal processes, it can result in new forms of collective culture and appropriation of public space (Amin, 2008). Cultural diversity in Lisbon, and specifically in Mouraria, has been highlighted as one of the most important features of the territory for over two decades and has been exhibited in festivals and celebrations organised by anti-racist and immigrant associations as well as by the state. The Martim Moniz Plaza has typically been used as the main stage. In 1998, the Municipality of Lisbon organised the 154

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

first multicultural parade along with the Cape Verdean, Brazilian and Mozambican communities (Mapril, 2002). In 2003, the V Diversity Party was organised by the Anti-Racism Network and supported by local authorities. However, there was an element of protest and politics embedded in these initiatives which gradually withered away (Marques and Costa, 2007). As of late, such initiatives have been cast through an aesthetic and artistic dimension. This shift has to be seen in conjunction with the functionalisation of art within urban development policies. Both material and immaterial artistic expressions have been harnessed for cultural and economic regeneration programmes. In capturing ethnic diversity in artistic forms, a process of aestheticisation of cultural expressions is set forward. Such processes are found to erase differences and attenuate affective unconformities (Arnaud, 2016, 10). Intercultural festivals or diversity celebrations have taken a central place in incorporation strategies in many European cities (Wood, 2012). In Lisbon, the intercultural festival, Todos – Caminhada de Culturas, can be considered the most concrete example of this practice, closely tied to the rationale of the encounter at the very heart of its planning (Fincher and Iveson, 2008). In this respect, it follows other experiences in which intercultural festivals were used to foster contact in the expectation that this would be the catalyst for socialisation and tolerance within superdiversity (Hadj-Abdou, 2014; Kingsbury, 2016). As one of the municipal leaders noted, it is important above all to raise the awareness of the ‘other’ so as to create ‘local conditions for intercultural work’ (Interview with coordinator of Lisbon: crossroad of cultures (GLEM) of CML) (February, 2011). It suggests that the adopted intercultural modality of diversity governance puts emphasis on interaction across, and not between, different ethnic groups (Alexander, 2007). Thus, the Todos festival worked as a practical recognition of interculturality in Lisbon, and served as a leitmotiv to the accession of Lisbon to the Intercultural Cities Network of the Council of Europe. In the words of the Director of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Council of Europe, the city would have ‘an exemplary character in intercultural dialogue and relations’, and the its expression would be precisely this cultural festival. Moreover, the cultural producer of Todos explicitly embraced this rationale stating that ‘Interculturality is at the centre of this encounter of cultures of other peoples’ (Interview with cultural producer). The stated objective of the festival from the outset has been to foster ‘the encounters and exchanges of experiences of a wide group of residents of varying ages, faiths and countries and different artists before the festival’ and it proposes a ‘strong and close contact with the cultures that reside in this part of the city’ (From the introductory page of Todos 2011 in Mouraria). 155

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

One of the original aims of the festival is to convey a sense of diversification, in other words that the broad spectrum of people involved would not stop at ethnicity. In fact, the rationale of the encounter in the festival is pursued in various ways through a hectic agenda full of cultural activities. Notably, making use of art to consolidate the public recognition of the diversity of origins found in the area, the example of the Watson photography exhibition in which the palette of cultural belongings in the public space represents a recognisable intention of social mix. Such an intention was an integral part of the various planning phases not only of the festival but also of the urban renewal process, showing a high level of involvement and ‘appropriation’ of the event by the local organisations involved and also by the public whom they sought to reach and encouraged to participate. This process simultaneously strives to involve older residents, autochthones, with the immigrant populations. Consequently, it explores the possibility that cultural synergies will result from this encounter, translated into shared dialogues and a sustainable level of interculturality for social cohesion. One city councillor reveals how Todos has worked toward cementing such relations: ‘Todos…has been replicated in the life of that neighbourhood: in the Bengalis who go into the Mouraria Sports Group…in the shopkeeper who now agrees to have the Todos symbol in his shop…All of this starts to form roots’ (City councillor, Lisbon). In the view of the planners, the ethnic and cultural diversity appears either as an asset to be taken advantage of in the regeneration of a territory (the city hall perspective) or as a sign of hybridisation and links among the residents from various origins that also contributes to social cohesion. ‘I believe that contact with others who have other models of life and show openness to hold this meeting, I think it can positively influence those communities in larger social precariousness’ (Artist, responsible for an intercultural festival). Superdiverse spaces are particularly prone to artistic mediations of ethnocultural expressions. Since the motto is to value mixing for what it brings in terms of social cohesion, artistic forms provide accrued legitimacy to these cultural expressions. At the same time, they are recognised according to different evaluation codes. The transformation of vernacular cultural forms into ‘performances’ not only appeals for a different kind of aesthetic disposition but also integrates a wider complex of culturalled urban renovation. As in other experiences (Arnaud, 2016) they are structured according to urban development goals. This is showed by the keen sense of the role of such festivals in one of the cultural entrepreneurs’ perception: ‘You have to determine whether in fact the festival is an

156

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

ethnic brand to Martim Moniz or is an ethnic brand to the city and want to enhance it to the city level.’ Therefore, there is a continuity between the aestheticisation of ethnic expressions and the new forms of occupation of the public space in innercities. The former cannot be separated from cultural-led regeneration policies involved through wider systems of governance, cultural entrepreneurs, cultural local actors and public investment. It is part of the making of territory competitiveness central to diversity advantage policy scripts. Place marketing, tourism and city branding

Tourism and migrations are an integral part of territorial competition, factors involved in both the production and consumption of urban places (Rath and Hall, 2007, 3; Hoffman et al, 2003). The requalification of Mouraria, with the opening of new public spaces and their regulation, is part of the recovery of the city centre through the practice of upgrading the inner city with a competitive international cultural strategy. It not only has an impact on the space in which it acts, but it also creates images that feed a new urban imaginary (Bianchini, 2006). Public decision-makers understand and support the new role that this urban area plays. They strategically consider it as a springboard for the internationalisation of Lisbon in becoming a new urban and cultural centre in Europe and an attraction capable to compete with other regions. Revenues from tourism in Lisbon has been on the rise, and at present contributes with a 31 per cent share of the national revenues generated from this sector.8 It is therefore a city integrated in the ‘space of flows’ of global tourism ranking 26th in the global hierarchy. The image of Lisbon as a cosmopolitan city therefore carries great symbolic weight. In the Strategic Plan 2011–14 of the Lisbon Tourism Association, the city is branded as ‘a cosmopolitan and tolerant capital marked by the discovery of new worlds and unique for its hospitality and multiculturality’.9 Mouraria is at the heart of this circulation of images, as an intercultural brand, a configuration that becomes autonomous of the social and daily life of the neighbourhood to garner a space apart for the tourist gaze. In the words of a city hall public official, ‘Obviously there is here a direct bearing on the question of putting Lisbon on that international circuit. It is logical to reassert this brand…even more so if we approach the city through its neighbourhoods…it makes sense to look at Mouraria and realise that its diversity…is what makes it interesting as urban territory, whether for tourism, leisure, working or living.’ 157

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Also cultural entrepreneurs are aware of the potential of exhibiting cultural and ethnic diversity as an asset. In effect, this perception is couched within a wider view of urban settings and entrepreneurial strategies that take the territory as a ‘landscape of consumption’ (Ritzer, 2005). Thus, the ‘ethnic’ in its consumable form is depicted as a way of living that allures the new behaviours and scripts of the globalised mobile workers. ‘Enhancing this ethnic brand when tourists arrive at the airport… and realising that this means that there are spaces of cultural transversalities in the neighbourhoods where numerous different events can take place: restaurants you had never dreamt of that join foods from around the world…Thus, beyond the migrants’ interculturality is a city of intercultural creativity: lifestyles, ways of being.’ (Cultural entrepreneur) In addition to cultural entrepreneurs and the public administration, local associations are also committed to investing in the resignification of the neighbourhood and its public space by place marketing the area. The twin attractions of vernacular expressions, such as Fado,10 with the ethnic mix that Mouraria offers are understood as potential for tourism. Two strategies run side by side and complement each other. The rehabilitation of heritage and its promotion as a tourist attraction works well with the transformation of diversity into a cosmopolitan branding, thus it is not a coincidence that in 2011 Fado was declared cultural world heritage and the City of Lisbon was admitted to the Intercultural Cities Network. In both cases, Mouraria played a central role: birthplace of Fado and stage of the Todos festival where and when Lisbon was officially made a member of the network. A cultural association leader refers to the potentiality of Mouraria as follows, ‘The neighbourhood has potential at many levels. Especially at the touristic and economic level. We felt that we had here unique restaurants, from taverns where older people use recipes brought from their villages, to restaurants owned by immigrants with foods from around the world. The great potential of this gastronomic wealth is a consequence of the diversity of the residents.’ In effect, local associations organise walking guided tours around the neighbourhood’s streets with thematic routes dedicated to both local and ethnic gastronomy as well as ethnic and traditional ways of living. A programme employing immigrant guides was implemented by one association to create an authentic link between the people and their 158

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

cultures. As one advertisement claims, the tours bring visitors into contact with the ‘richness and diversity of the communities that live and work in the neighbourhood’,11 enhancing a new place marketing. Such ways of place marketing associated with local diversity can also be seen in the mix of traditional religious festivities with arty events and festivals. These are generally announced as happening in ‘one of the most multicultural streets in the country’ where one can find ‘multiple age groups and even different languages​​…echoing, after all, the human variety that lives and walks’ in the neighbourhood.12 In short, such initiatives are part of the strategy of cultural-led urban renewal and place marketing. The main goal of these structural modifications has been to boost tourism and visitors to that part of the city while creating a cosmopolitan image that gives the city its specific tinge.

Discussion The current manifestations of cultural expressions assumed by diversity cannot be dissociated from specific places and their social appropriations, with the actors involved having a very clear perception of these interrelations, as our work reveals. Certain urban spaces lend themselves particularly well to the mobilisation of such configurations of identities (Oliveira, 2015). Mouraria fits this pattern due to its centrality, heterogeneity, history and heritage. The combination of aestheticisation, commodification and culturalisation of urban interventions can be observed in various fora and activities and, in all of these, the language of ‘groupism’ associated with the anti-racist or culturalist agenda is opposed to a paradigm of the symbolism of the mix of various cultural expressions as characteristic of the place. This perception is striking in the investments of urban governance actors and in the way they engage with superdiversity settings. It is relevant here that the strategy promoting cultural diversity through cultural and artistic initiatives coincides with an extensive rehabilitation programme bringing together a number of features that can be found in other experiences that came to be structured by the interdependencies between an ‘entrepreneurial city’ model (Harvey, 2001), the culturalisation of the city, and the aestheticisation and commodification processes of the vernacular social practices (Edensor et al, 2010; Vickery, 2011). Such initiatives are associated with the promotion of the symbolic economy and new consumption habits that arise from the aestheticisation of social life, which simultaneously shape new selective forms of social interactions. The three urban governance strategies outlined above give a notion of the fundamental changes in terms of the construction of difference and of 159

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

otherness. Ethnicised or racialised cultural formulations were not part of this model; instead the language of diversity imposed itself through practical and discursive expressions. We argue that besides its developmentalist and economicist logic the relation between urban policy and superdiversity is based on a de-ethnicised understanding of ethno-cultural diversity. This relation has been often overlooked by authors who study the interdependence between higher levels of diversity and urban economic development (Florida, 2002; Syrett and Sepulveda, 2011). If ethnicisation amounts to strengthening social boundaries constructed around ethnicity, undoing such boundaries is a process of de-ethnicisation. Thus, this work shows how the actors involved in urban governance networks reformulate the ethnicised language of the strong group belongings into a paradigm of diversities in their interrelations with the space and the rationale of the entrepreneurial and creative city. In this sense, the meanings attributed by social agents to the new configurations of cultural difference are themselves drivers of the social dynamics of building superdiversity. The fact that the dominant classifications are no longer associated with understandings of the social world in terms of defined groups or majority–minority relations is due to the incorporation of a discourse about heterogeneity without classifications and its advantage The expression of recognition through the encounter and its appropriation by art are linked to what Keith (2005) designated the curatorship of diversity. Performances and artistic forms linked to belonging identified as ethnic or racial reveal ways of expressing this diversity that are closely linked to combined strategies of building the cultural neighbourhood with visions of the creative city. Although not specifically articulated by either the local authorities or the planners, the association between empowering people for intercultural contact through artistic forms and the valorisation of the territory is acknowledged. This upscaling involves a culturally driven urban renewal which creates the conditions for the spatial agglomeration of cultural activities and new trends. On the other hand, there is the danger of ‘fetishisizing particular aestheticized spaces of production and consumption, such as the gentrified urban’ (Edensor et al, 2010, 5). In superdiverse spaces such as Mouraria, cultural diversity becomes fruition or as Oliver (2016, 1300) phrases it ‘cultural diversity as middle class lifestyle amenity’. Moreover, as Keith notes (2005, 128) in relation to cultural neighbourhoods, these spaces are subject ‘to metonymic readings of the wider city’. The conversion of Mouraria into an intrinsically intercultural place fosters an image that is transmitted to the rest of the city through its ‘halo effect’. In contrast to the experiences associated with ethnic precincts, the neighbourhood is not linked with any one community in particular, such as a Chinatown. Efforts of this kind were always dismissed 160

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

because they contradicted the public authorities’ guidelines. Once more, ethnicised definitions of the local are set aside in favour of an image of pure diversity where places and foreigners cross paths in interrelations that are not confined to ethnic belongings. This, in its turn, is marketable, and initiatives around branding it and disseminating its image throughout various media have been increasing. Such a representation, however, is closely linked to the specificity of the local. Although we join Syrett and Sepulveda’s call for a ‘spatially-historical sensitive contextual analysis’ (Syrett and Sepulveda, 2012, 241) our understanding of such a contextual approach diverges from theirs. Accordingly, urban policy might be considered generically applied to the city region and its administrative domain; but strategies to create a diversity dividend depend on very specific features found in certain local contexts. In other words, not all places are compatible with such strategies. Mouraria emerges as a particular site where it is possible to try out a European concept of the governance of diversity under the aegis of diversity advantage. The starting point being the blueprint of the Intercultural Cities model, in this case associated with a neighbourhood revitalisation programme. This strategy can only be understood when related to contemporaneous urban governance ideals of urban regeneration through investment in cultural and recreation industries and rebranding.

Conclusion This chapter has raised the question of how urban governance strategies incorporate superdiverse spaces. We have used the concrete case of Mouraria to look into the social dynamics that have materialised the idea of ‘diversity advantage’ in a specific urban space. Three mechanisms work together co-producing this ‘diversity advantage’. The first is a de-ethnicised concept of culture and identity that works as a regulatory framework of both public authorities and stakeholders. The second is diversity as an aestheticised practice. Cultural practices associated with ethno-cultural groups are mediated by artistic creations and in this way managed by cultural professionals. The third mechanism is place marketing associated with images of superdiversity and ethnocultural supply that in its turn imprint a cosmopolitan style to the city. In all these processes the idea of hybridity and cross-fertilisation opposes process and actions of ‘otherness’. Frameworks that abandon the ‘ethnic group’ approach as the object of administrative policies cannot be separated from new forms of urban governance. Such frameworks are predicated on fostering urban development processes akin to the entrepreneurial city model. These two factors complement each other insofar as on the one hand the territory – 161

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

in this case the neighbourhood – becomes the strategic unit of the action taken by local authorities, and on the other because it is linked to the contemporary processes of urban renewal. The rehabilitation of rundown historic areas, formerly occupied by distinct fluxes of migrants whether domestic or from abroad, incorporates cultural diversity in spaces of intersection of globalised markets and globalising networks of people. These comprehend migrants but also tourist flows, entrepreneurial activities, gentrifiers and cultural professionals. The rehabilitation of Mouraria, as part of the inner-city development process, has been shaped by efforts to attract a broad set of actors (neighbours, businesses, NGOs, shoppers, visitors and tourists) driven by the combined action of key players engaged in local governance networks. It is its superdiverse nature combined with the particularity of that space that makes possible the interconnection of the observed dynamics. Empirical data from interviews and official documents show that, though tolerance and interaction are important attitudes to promote in contexts characterised by diversity, actors are also acutely aware of how mainstreaming diversity is linked to other factors, among them the visibility of the territory and the importance of a diversity advantage. Conversely, superdiversity is also considered an inextricable part of public culture and, in this sense, a crucial aspect within the overhauling of this particular urban space. Assuming that the discourse on diversity has become part of the social imaginary, as Vertovec (2012) suggests, the local government interventions also become ‘practical’ at the city level, rendering greater visibility to a specific kind of diversity. On the one hand, superdiversity is understood and nurtured in terms of cross-cultural exchanges within local encounters – in other words, de-essentialising culture. On the other, it is seen as a resource for local and social economic development. Between these angles there is the danger of reifying what was initially deemed to be de-ethnicised. Seemingly, superdiversity is appropriated to be transformed into a commodity by global market mechanisms, trumpeting other crucial aspects. If social visibility, and therefore recognition, is solely granted through the incorporation in global competitive mechanisms, be it the global economy of tourism, or the globalised market of cultural professionals, then everything following out of this set of factors risks being neglected by the new dynamics of recognition. Acknowledgements Thanks to the anonymous reviewers who made important suggestions that helped to improve this chapter.

162

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

Funding Projects ‘Convivial Cultures and Superdiversity’ PTDC/CS-SOC/101693/2008 and ‘Interculturalism: the third way for migrants integration’ SFRH/ BPD/88233/2012, funded by FCT. Notes 1 Diagnosis Report of Santa Maria Maior parish council (April 2015). 2 Presentation of Mouraria Community Development Plan, CML, taken from www.aimouraria.cm-lisboa.pt/pdcm.html. 3 Project ‘Convivial Cultures and Superdiversity’, coordinated by Beatriz Padilla, PTDC/CS-SOC/101693/2008, funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. The project entailed a comparison between four neighbourhoods in Lisbon and Granada. For the purposes of this chapter, only the fieldwork carried out in Mouraria is used. 4 Project ‘Interculturalism: the third way for migrants’ integration’, SFRH/ BPD/88233/2012, Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. 5 Plan for the Integration of Immigrants approved by Council of Ministers Resolution nr.63-A/2007, dated 3 May. 6 Lx-Europa 2020. Lisboa no próximo período de programação comunitário, CML, November 2012. 7 Strategic Vision, Lisbon 2002-2012. Lines of urban development, Lisbon: CML, 2007, 75, accessed from http://ulisses.cm-lisboa.pt/ data/002/009. 8 Estatísticas do Turismo (Tourism Statistics), 2014, INE, p 49. 9 Plano Estratégico 2011–2014 da ATL (Strategic Plan), 2010, Deloitte Consulting, p 326. 10 Fado, the melancholic rhythms and lyrics invoking Moorish soundscapes and adopted as iconic national music, declared intangible world cultural heritage in 2011, by UNESCO. 11 www.renovaramouraria.pt/percurso-mouraria-dos-povos-e-das-culturas/. 12 Discourse produced a propos of a music happening in Intendente lifted out of a blog, www.redbull.com/pt/pt/music/stories/1331657544086/ um-novo-intendente-11-ecr%C3%A3s-de-televis%C3%A3o. References Alexander, M. (2007) Cities and labour immigration: Comparing policy responses in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv, Aldershot: Ashgate. Amin, A. (2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city, Environment and Planning, vol 34, no 6, pp 959–80. Amin, A. (2008) Collective culture and urban public space, City, vol 12, no 1, pp 5–24.

163

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Arnaud, L. (2016) The marketing of diversity and the esthetization of the difference: The cultural expressions of ethnic minorities put to the test of new urban cultural policies, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, vol 22, pp 9–26. Berg, M.L. and Sigona, N. (2013) Ethnography, diversity and urban space, Identities, vol 20, no 4, pp 347–60, doi:10.1080/ 1070289X.2013.822382 Bianchini, F. (2006) Introduction. European urban mindscapes: Concepts, cultural representations and policy applications, in G. Weiss-Sussex and F. Bianchini (eds) Urban mindscapes of Europe, European Studies, 23, Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, pp 13–34. Brunson, P.R. (2013) Building intercultural strategies with citizens, Washington, DC and Strasbourg: Center for the Study of Social Policy and Council of Europe. Çağlar, A. and Schiller, N.G. (2011) Introduction: migrants and cities, in N.G. Schiller and A. Çağlar (eds) Locating migration: Rescaling cities and migrants, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp 1–22. Çağlar, A. (2014) Urban migrations trends. Challenges and opportunities in Europe, World Migration Report 2015, Background paper, December, IOM. Conradson, D. and Latham, A. (2005) Transnational urbanism: Attending to everyday practices and mobilities, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 31, no 2, pp 227–33. Costa, F.L. (2011) Globalização, diversidade e ‘novas’ classes criativas em Lisboa: economia etnocultural e a emergência de um sistema de produção etnocultural (Globalization, diversity and ‘new’ creative classes in Lisbon: ethnocultural economics and the emergence of an ethnocultural production system), Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, vol 67, pp 85–106. Cully, M. (2009) Diversity dividend: Making the most from cultural diversity, Sydney: Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Edensor, T., Leslie, D., Millington, S. and Rantisi, N. (eds) (2010) Spaces of vernacular creativity: Rethinking the cultural economy, London: Taylor and Francis. Evans, G. and Foord, Jo. (2003) Shaping the cultural landscape: Local regeneration effects, in M. Miles and T. Hall (eds) Urban future: Critical commentaries on shaping cities, London: Routledge, pp 167–81. Fainstein, S.S. (2010) The Just City, New York: Cornell University Press. Fincher, R. and Iveson, K. (2008) Planning and diversity in the city: Redistribution, recognition and encounter, Basingstock and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

164

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H. and Preston, V. (2014) Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference?, Progress in Planning, vol 92, pp 1–55. Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class: And how it is transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, Basic Books: New York. Garbaye, R. (2002) Ethnic minority participation in British and French cities: Historical–institutionalist perspective, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol 26, no 3, pp 439–653. Grillo, R. (2000) The plural city in comparative perspective, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 23, no 6, pp 957–81. Hadj-Abdou, L. (2014) Immigrant integration and the economic competitiveness agenda: A comparison of Dublin and Vienna, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 40, no 12, pp 1875–94. Harvey, D. (2001) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism, in Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography, New York: Routledge, pp 345–368. Hoffman, L.M., Fainstein, S., Judd, Denis, R. (orgs) (2003) Cities and visitors: Regulating people, markets and city space, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Keith, M. (2005) After the cosmopolitan, London: Routledge. Kingsbury, P. (2016) Rethinking the aesthetic geographies of multicultural festivals: A Nietzschean perspective, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, vol 106, no 1, pp 222–241. Landry, C. (2008) The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators, 2nd edn, Earthscan: London. Mapril, J. (2002) De Wenzhou ao Martim Moniz (From Wenzhou to Martim Moniz), Ethnologia, 12–14, pp 253–94. Marques, M.M. and Costa, F.L. (2007) Building a market of ethnic references: Activism and diversity in multicultural settings in Lisbon, in J. Rath and M.C. Hall (eds) Tourism, Ethnic diversity and the City, New York: Routledge, pp 181–198. Nadai, E. and Maeder C. (2009) Contours of the field(s): Multi-sited ethnography as a theory-driven research strategy for sociology, in M. Falzon (ed) Multi-sited ethnography: Theory, practice and locality in contemporary research, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp 233–50. Nathan, M. (2011) The economics of super-diversity: Findings from British cities, 2001–2006, SERC (Spatial Economics Research Centre) Discussion Paper 68, London: SERC, The London School of Economics and Political Science. Neill, W.J.V. and Schwedler H.-U. (eds) (2007) Migration and cultural inclusion in the European city, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

165

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Nowicka, M. and Vertovec, S. (2014) Introduction. Comparing convivialities: Dreams and realities of living-with-difference, European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol 17, no 4, pp 341–56, doi: 10.1177/1367549413510414 Oliveira, N. (2015) Producing interculturality: Repertoires, strategies and spaces, New Diversities, vol 17, no 2, pp 129–43. Oliveira, N. and Padilla, B. (2012) A diversidade como elemento de desenvolvimento/atração nas políticas locais urbanas (Diversity as an element of development/attraction in local urban policies), Sociologia – Revista da FLUP, Special Issue: Imigração, Diversidade e Convivência Cultural (Migration, Diversity and Cultural Conviviality), pp 129–62. Oliver, M de. (2016) Gentrification as the appropriation of therapeutic “diversity”: A model and case study of the multicultural amenity of contemporary urban renewal, Urban Studies, vol 53, no 6, pp 1299–1316. Padilla, B. and Ortiz, A. (2012) Fluxos migratórios em Portugal: do boom migratório à desaceleração no contexto de crise. Balanço e desafios (Migration flows in Portugal: From the migratory boom to the slowdown in the context of crisis), Revista REMHU, V XX, 39, Jul–Dec, pp 159–84. Phillimore, J. (2013) Housing, home and neighbourhood renewal in the era of superdiversity: Some lessons from the West Midlands, Housing Studies, vol 28, no 5, pp 682–700. Ritzer, G. (2005) Enchanting a disenchanted world: Revolutionizing the means of consumption, Thousands Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Robinson, D. (2007) European Union accession state migrants in social housing in England: People, place and policy, DOI: 10.3351/ppp.0001.0003.0001, 1/3, 98–111 Rath, J. and Hall, M.C. (2007) Tourism, migration and place advantage in the global cultural economy in J. Rath and M.C. Hall (eds) Tourism, ethnic diversity and the city, New York: Routledge, pp 1–24. Sandercock, L. (2003) Cosmopolis 2: Mongrel cities in the 21st century, London: Continuum. Schiller, N.G. (2014) Diasporic cosmopolitanism: Migrants, sociabilities, and city-making, in N. G. Schiller and A Irving (eds) Whose cosmopolitanism?: Critical Perspectives, relationalities and discontent, New York: Berghahn. Schiller, N.G. and Çağlar, A. (2015) Displacement, emplacement and migrant newcomers: rethinking urban sociabilities within multiscalar power, Identities, DOI: 10.1080/1070289X.2015.1016520 Syrett, S. and Sepulveda, L. (2011) Realising the diversity dividend: Population diversity and urban economic development, Environment and Planning A, vol 43, pp 487–504, doi:10.1068/a43185 166

Integrating superdiversity in urban governance

Syrett, S. and Sepulveda, L. (2012) Urban governance and economic development in the diverse city, European Urban and Regional Studies, vol 19, no 3, pp 238–253, DOI: 10.1177/0969776411430287 Tasan-Kok, T., van Kempen, R., Raco, M. and Bolt, G. (2013) Towards hyper-diversified European cities: A critical literature review, Brussels: European Commission. Tulumello S. (2016) Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: Urban regeneration policy in a ‘dense’ space in Lisbon, Urban Geography, vol 37, no 1, pp 117–40, doi: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1056605 Uitermark, J. (2012) Dynamics of power in Dutch integration politics. From accommodation to confrontation, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Uitermark J., Rossi, U. and Van Houtum, H. (2005) Reinventing multiculturalism: Urban citizenship and the negotiation of ethnic diversity in Amsterdam, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol 29, pp 622–640, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00614.x Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54. Vertovec, S. (2012) Diversity and the social imaginary, European Journal of Sociology, vol 53, pp 287­­–312, doi:10.1017/S000397561200015X Vickery, J. (2011) Beyond the creative city: Cultural policy in an age of scarcity, MADE (Media Architecture Design Edmonton), Annual ‘Talking Cities’ Lecture series, Birmingham, November, www.made.org.uk/ areasofwork/culture/projects/beyond_the_creative_city_cultural_ policy_in_an_age_of_scarcity Wessendorf, S. (2013) Commonplace diversity and the ‘ethos of mixing’: Perceptions of difference in a London neighbourhood, Identities, vol 20, no 4, pp 407–22. Wise, A. and Velayutham, S. (eds) (2010) Everyday multiculturalism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wood, P. (2012) Challenges of governance in multi-ethnic cities, in H.K. Anheier and Y.R. Isar (eds) Cultures and globalization: Cities, cultural policy and governance, London: Sage, pp 44–60. Wood, P. and Landry, C. (2008) The intercultural city: Planning for diversity advantage, London: Earthscan.

167

CHAPTER EIGHT

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity Simon Pemberton

Introduction This chapter is a first major attempt to explore the role of urban planning in responding to migration-related superdiversity. While previous research has been undertaken on urban planning and the multicultural city (Fincher et al, 2014; Burayidi, 2003; Sandercock, 2003; 1998; Qadeer, 1997) as well as planning and diversity in the city (Fincher and Iveson, 2008; Uyesugi and Shipley, 2005; Baumann, 1996), little attention to date has focused on the challenges of increasing superdiversity for urban planning. Superdiversity describes a demographic condition in which populations are more diverse than ever before (Vertovec, 2007). Vertovec argues that superdiversity has been driven by new migration wherein migration pathways are no longer dominated by post-Commonwealth relationships, and with the patterning of immigrants changing from many migrants moving to a few places to fewer migrants moving to many places (Vertovec, 2007; Phillimore, 2013). The scale, complexity, heterogeneity, fragmentation of populations and speed and spread of change associated with superdiversity exceeds any previously experienced (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015). While it is acknowledged that almost everywhere, rural and urban, has become more diverse, the scale, speed and spread of superdiversity varies by country and by settlement area, and with large urban centres most affected (Vertovec, 2007). Superdiversity is in evidence in major cities such as London (29 per cent from ethnic minority backgrounds and from over 170 countries) (GLA, 2005), and Birmingham, where GP registration data has shown that 41,318 migrants moved to the city from 187 different countries between 2007 and 2010 (Phillimore, 2013). Super-diverse areas may be ‘layered’, and accommodating both old and new migrants, as well as long-standing non-migrant populations. While no tipping-point has yet been identified between being a multicultural area and a super-diverse area, what is important to recognise is that superdiversity espouses the idea of communities being so diverse that 168

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

there are no dominant ethnic groups. As such, it moves beyond the idea of multicultural communities consisting of a small number of ethnic groups with similar origins frequently living in close proximity to each other as distinct diaspora (Pemberton and Phillimore, 2016). To date, however, little work has been undertaken on the role of urban planning in responding to increasing superdiversity. Urban planning has been defined as an action-oriented and interventionist approach that is fundamentally concerned with the process of development (Adams, 2001, 2). The primary concerns of urban planning relate to decisions on how to share public goods, the use of public and/or private property by local residents, and managing conflict over how public goods are shared, or how land is used (Pestieau and Wallace, 2003, 255). With reference to the relationship between urban planning and issues of diversity, Fincher et al (2014) argue that urban planning has engaged with diversity in three main ways: i) to manage social difference in situations where difference has been associated with disadvantage or interpreted as disorderly; ii) to commodify and use the features of cities for urban tourism or urban regeneration purposes; and iii) to regulate public spaces and facilities where there is conflict over their use between ethnic groups. In relation to superdiversity, this means that a broad view of urban planning is required, and which involves urban planning being defined as a key element of wider strategies of urban governance and management (Fincher and Iveson, 2008, 7). In so doing, urban planners need to think about how to balance competing interests, how to recognise and address specific needs, and how to respond to people in increasingly diversified (or diversifying) settings (Fincher and Iveson, 2008). However, interventionist activities that have traditionally been based around addressing the needs of a dominant ethnic or national identity cohering within particular neighbourhoods in the city (Boschman and van Ham, 2015; Becares et al, 2012) may no longer be applicable. Consequently, this chapter is focused on both the city and neighbourhood scale of analysis. It investigates the challenges for urban planning in responding to migration-related superdiversity within the context of Meissner and Vertovec’s (2015) three-fold identification of superdiversity as: i) population complexity – involving a focus on the context of superdiversity and population reconfiguration; ii) as a method, involving the re-orientation of a focus away from ethnicity-based approaches; and iii) as a policy, including the implications of superdiversity for the nature of policy approaches or tools – in this instance, urban planning. The next section of the chapter explores the nature of urban planning in the context of national multicultural policies and the implications and challenges for urban planners arising with the emergence of superdiversity. 169

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

The third section sets out the methodology and sampling approach that were used to undertake the research. The fourth and fifth sections subsequently explore some of the challenges of superdiversity for urban planning through drawing upon Fincher and Iveson’s (2008) concepts of redistribution, recognition and encounter. The final section summarises the discussion and identifies a number of areas for further research.

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity The UK has long possessed an ethnically and culturally diverse population (Tasan-Kok et al, 2014). In the UK, immigration increased rapidly in the post-war era of economic growth and with large-scale immigration from areas such as the Caribbean and South Asia (Vertovec, 2007). However, principles of universalism generally underpinned modernist planning during this period. This meant that in general, urban planning involved limited public input, the exclusion of difference and diversity, and a lack of focus on issues of race or gender (Sandercock, 1998; 2003). Indeed, urban planning during the post-war Keynesian social liberal period was viewed as a particular function of state policy, and reflecting broader national economic priorities, policies and ideologies (Healey, 1998). As such, urban planning processes were not designed with difference in mind and adopted a normative approach on what urban planning ought to achieve in order to improve the life of inhabitants in urban areas (Campbell, 2006). Thomas (1995, 142) highlights that there was little consideration of diversity in urban planning in the UK during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s because ‘the black and ethnic minority population was invisible to the planning system’. In contrast, class was perceived as a key issue which needed to be addressed in the context of achieving social balance and social welfare (Thomas, 1995). But the increasing social and economic problems associated with many inner cities in the UK in the late 1960s and early 1970s introduced a spatial dimension to discussions over diversity and how planning should respond to a racialised and unequal society. Nevertheless, the increasingly bureaucratised and technocratic role assigned for the planning system arguably undermined its ability to respond (Thomas, 1995, 143), and indeed did little to address patterns of institutionalised discrimination in the British planning system (Gale, 2005). The lack of sensitivity of the planning system to the needs and aspirations of black and ethnic minorities was also reflective of the neoliberal, market-based ‘Thatcherite’ ideologies and practices that emerged from 1979 onwards, and with economic efficiency – rather than racial equality – being a specific concern of central government (Thomas, 2008).

170

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

Notwithstanding this neglect, the need to recognise and tackle issues of discrimination and racism within government and society was brought into sharp relief through the inner city riots of the early 1980s. The Scarman Report of 1981 identified how such disturbances had been generated – at least in part – by socio-economic inequalities within minority ethnic groups and perceptions of racial discrimination by the police (Tasan-Kok et al, 2014). In turn, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the (then) Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) report on Planning for a multi-racial Britain (1983) established a new long-term commitment by planners to racial equality (Thomas, 2000). However, questions were raised over the research that underpinned the report as well as the lack of explicit definition on what actually constituted a racial minority (Gale, 2008). The specific requirements of a reformed Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) and the increasing requirement to be sensitive to diversity with the rise of multiculturalism – and as a character of good governance (see Harris and Thomas, 2004) – subsequently led to specific guidance being provided to local planning authorities. This set out how they should sensitise their policies and practices to the needs and aspirations of ethnic minorities, and to counter racism (ODPM, 2005). Multiculturalism – as a political philosophy is rooted in the values of diversity and equality (Qadeer and Agrawal, 2011, 135). Under multiculturalism, urban planning followed the lead of national multicultural policies and the provision of services on ethno-specific lines and the recognition of ethno-cultural differences (Fincher et al, 2014). Multicultural urban planning can therefore be viewed as a normative response to diversity within a city – primarily ethno-cultural diversity – and an awareness of race and culture (Qadeer and Agarwal, 2011). It also entails a more inclusive, democratic and communicative approach to planning practice by urban planners (Healey, 1998; Sandercock, 1998), and which seeks to provide equal opportunities to all minority cultural groups – including those ‘from the borderlands’ – in the planning and management of the built environment (Sandercock, 2003). As such, it involves urban planners placing a particular focus on ethnic, religious and/ or cultural differences and associated ‘rights to difference’ and ‘rights to the city’, including public space and public affairs (Sandercock, 2003). Ethnic minorities are seen as having distinct ways of life and subsequently these constructs are reflected in the need to develop different forms of consultation and participation (Beebeejaun, 2004). In the UK there is a long history of debate about the desirability of community engagement and participation in planning processes. (For example, see the Planning Advisory Groups’ (1965) report on The future of development plans and the Skeffington Committee (Committee on 171

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Public Participation in Planning, 1969) on securing public participation in development plans (Sagoe, 2016, 2).) Furthermore, under the former Labour government there was a commitment to reinvigorate community involvement within planning through the introduction in 2004 of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). While highly variable in their content and coverage, the Statement of Community Involvement considers the types of community involvement to be undertaken (within each local authority area) and with whom, the ways in which such involvement will inform planning policies, and the likely resource implications of such measures (ODPM, 2004). In so doing, what the Statement of Community Involvement also illustrates – and which arguably is more important than the document itself – are the values, underlying commitment and institutional support of a local authority that are likely to positively or negatively shape consultation and/or participation processes (Brownill and Carpenter, 2007). Beebeejaun (2012), however, has highlighted that while consultation and participation in planning processes are inherently viewed as empowering, in reality there has been insufficient attention paid to the benefits or dangers of such participation. There have also been problems in terms of presuming ethnic minorities have a ‘natural’ ethno-cultural identity and participation based on group similarities, rather than on individual political identities (Beebeejaun, 2004, 437). Recently, the concept of multiculturalism has been increasingly criticised as characterising and legitimising ‘a retreat into culturally and physically separate minority communities’ (Vertovec, 2010, 90). Sandercock (1998, 3) also notes how it can lead to a ‘fear of the ‘other’…a fear of a whole way of life being eroded…and fear of change itself ’. Multiculturalism can essentialise and reify differences between ethnic or cultural groups, while obscuring power differentials and inequalities within (Kymlicka, 2010). Hence there has been a gradual demise of multiculturalism as both a public policy and as a political discourse (Berg and Sigona, 2013). The critique of multiculturalism has given way to a ‘broader expression and recognition of different kinds of differences…and resulting largely from new migration that has transformed the demographic profile of urban areas’ (Berg and Sigona, 2013, 348). In this respect, successive national governments in the UK since 1997 have gradually shifted their focus away from an emphasis on multiculturalism to a focus on community cohesion and integration policies concerned with minimising social disorder and promoting greater individual responsibility among citizens and communities (Raco et al, 2014). This leads into a discussion of ‘superdiversity’. Migration-related superdiversity highlights the need to move beyond depictions of 172

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

bounded communities differentiated along ethnic and cultural lines to consider representations of society that emphasise lifestyle, household and consumption differences; class-based differences; socio-economic, cultural, religious and linguistic differences; and the implications of differences in the legal status of individuals (Vertovec, 2007; 2011). However, superdiversity is about more than simply adding new variables of difference. Rather, it is more about how such variables may interrelate and interact with each other to shape the composition of communities, their needs and their future direction (Vertovec, 2007). Thus while it has been recognised that a redesign of the planning system for managing migration-related diversity is increasingly required (Burayidi, 2003, 270), to date the focus has been on urban planning ‘needing to recognize ethnic differences’ (Fincher and Iveson, 2008, 120). Moreover, if a focus is placed on superdiversity as a methodology, such methods need to increasingly reflect the context of superdiversity as population complexity and explore the extent to which urban planners are able to move away from ethno-focal approaches (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015, 542–3). At the same time, there is a need to consider the extent to which superdiversity is about reducing structural inequalities and the discrimination and marginalisation of individuals as opposed to simply mapping localised differences and obtaining access to people’s practices and strategies of identification (Sepulveda et al, 2011). Indeed, some have argued that the superdiversity discourse risks creating an ‘equivalence of differences’ (Vertovec, 2012, 289). As such, it may be interpreted and utilised to deliver economic development objectives (the ‘diversity dividend’) but which may serve to conceal structural forms of inequality between groups through individualising explanations for inequality, discrimination and labour market exploitation (Raco et al, 2014). In this context, the work of Nancy Fraser (1997) is of relevance in terms of the need to consider the social logics of planning cities for diversity. Fraser (1997) highlights how there have been on-going concerns with combining a cultural politics of difference with a social politics of equality to address cultural and economic injustices. However, this is not straightforward as addressing economic injustice (or redistribution) involves attempting to address the significance of the differences (for example, race or gender) on which inequalities are based. On the other hand, strategies of recognition to overcome cultural injustices involve highlighting the specific needs of particular groups or individuals. Thus Fraser (1997) highlights the importance of affirmative and transformative strategies: while the former may focus on tackling the symptoms of cultural and economic inequality, it is only transformative strategies that seek to address the causal processes generating and reinforcing injustice (Fincher et al, 2014). 173

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Such work therefore draws attention to the importance of redistribution and recognition, and has also been used to provide a framework for evaluating local empowerment initiatives (for example, see Perrons and Skyer, 2003). However, Fraser’s focus on addressing injustice has also been used by Fincher and Iveson (2008) to explore how urban planners may respond to people in increasingly diversified (or diversifying) settings. Their work is therefore drawn upon to structure the research and analysis presented in the following sections of the chapter as it highlights the importance of the concepts of redistribution, recognition and encounter. These concepts articulate the key role of urban planning, namely: i) how to manage social differences, including balancing competing interests and sharing public goods, including the use of public and private property; ii) how to recognise and address specific needs of different individuals and provide services; and iii) how to respond to people in increasingly diversified (or diversifying) settings.

Methodology While recent work has sought to consider policy narratives of diversity in global cities such as London, less focus has been placed on cities that are more recently diversifying and/or which are becoming increasingly super-diverse. Liverpool was therefore selected as a case study as it exemplifies superdiversity as population complexity (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015) given its changing population configuration. Moreover, although Liverpool’s population is less ethnically diverse than other cities such as London and Birmingham (13.6 per cent of the population is defined as black and minority ethnic (BME) compared to a national figure of 18.8 per cent) (LCC, 2013a), the speed and spread of change of Liverpool’s diversification in the last 15 years has been extremely significant. Indeed, the city experienced the greatest increase in the proportion of residents born overseas of all of the major UK cities between 2001 and 2011 (LCC, 2013a). There are now 250 self-declared ethnicities in Liverpool according to the 2011 Census (ONS, 2011). A significant influx of EU Accession country migrants have also arrived since 2004, decades after ‘old migrant’ populations (such as those from Africa and New Commonwealth immigrants). Some 6,400 residents (1.4 per cent) of the city’s population were identified as being born in the EU Accession countries according to the 2011 census (LCC, 2013a). In addition, two-fifths (19,600 people) of Liverpool residents born outside the UK identified that they had lived in the UK for less than five years (LCC, 2013a). It has been recognised how policy narratives of diversity may be socially constructed and reproduced through discursive practices (Fischer, 2003). 174

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

Yet there has been little focus to date on the role of specific urban planning policies per se in responding to increasing superdiversity. Consequently, a systematic analysis of strategies concerned with urban planning in Liverpool was initially undertaken in order to consider the extent to which diversity has figured in policy discourses over the past 15 years. In total, over 20 documents were considered. These were split into four main types. First, key planning documents such as the existing Unitary Development Plan (LCC, 2002), the draft Core Strategy1 and the emerging Shaping the Liverpool local plan (LCC, 2013b), as well as emerging neighbourhood planning arrangements in the city. Together, these provide the planning context for the city in relation to the development plan system that emerged in England from 2004. Nevertheless, given that it is often difficult to disentangle specific planning policies and practices from other interventions that have an impact on urban areas – and indeed which highlights how urban planning is a key part of urban governance and management (Fincher et al, 2014, 3) – a number of other documents were considered. These included city-wide strategies concerned with urban regeneration and improving the quality of life of the city’s residents – for example, the city’s (then) community strategy (Liverpool First, 2009). In addition, development plans of the wider Liverpool City Region were analysed. Finally, plans more explicitly associated with diversity and equality in the city were also examined. These included the Race equality impact assessment for the NewHeartlands Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Initiative (WM Consultants, 2006), the Liverpool black and racial minorities action plan (Liverpool BRM Network, 2014) and the City Council’s Equality and diversity policy statement (LCC, 2011; 2016). Reference – where relevant – is made to such policies and strategies in the following section. However, in practice there was relatively little focus on diversity per se, which was a revealing finding in itself. As a result, information collected from three separate qualitative studies conducted in Liverpool between 2009 and 2011 was also used to inform the arguments presented in this chapter. Each of the studies engaged with new migrants who had arrived in the city since 2004 – both from within and beyond the EU. There was a specific focus on the extent to which their needs were being met through facilities in the local neighbourhood; the degree to which individuals’ needs varied and were being recognised; and the importance of particular spaces or places in the neighbourhood that were deemed conducive to positive encounter and which were helping to facilitate the recognition of different needs and the nature of subsequent interventions.

175

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Such material is pertinent given the extended period of time over which the implementation of a new development plan system for the city has taken place. In essence, changes in the broader national context (for example, the introduction of the 2011 Localism Act) have informed the incremental and gradual evolution of local planning policy. Consequently, earlier planning legislation – for example, the Unitary Development Plan – continues to be of relevance to strategic planning in Liverpool, and indeed exists alongside more recent (and incremental) activity to prepare a new development plan document (in the form of the Draft Core Strategy which has now morphed into a single Liverpool Local Plan). Hence, through using material collected from the three qualitative studies, it is possible to deliberate how – and to what extent – diversity has been encapsulated within urban planning agendas over time, and how this may be changing with regards to recent policy developments in the city. In total, 18 semi-structured interviews were held with policy-makers and practitioners in Liverpool and who were involved in responding to the needs of migrant communities. Such interviewees included a range of actors involved in the city’s governance and management – including local authority planning and regeneration officers, other strategic and local delivery officers from the public and voluntary sector and local elected members – and reflecting the broad conception of urban planning’s role within urban governance (Fincher et al, 2014). The intention was to focus on the nature and relevance of urban planning responses, including how – and to what extent – they were seeking to manage and respond to the needs of different groups; and the degree to which they were adopting an approach that moved beyond a focus on ethnic difference. In addition, migrant interviewees were also recruited to solicit their needs and perceptions on whether these were being met. This was undertaken via a number of approaches, including local gatekeepers, snowball sampling and via community groups and leafleting. The interviews were undertaken in the migrants’ mother tongue by multilingual community researchers. The intention was not to generalise across whole populations of migrants but to identify key trends. In total, 63 interviews and one focus group with nine migrants were conducted in different parts of Liverpool. The sampling strategy attempted to reflect the increasing superdiversity emerging in the city. Thus respondents varied according to migration channel, as well as gender, age, country of origin, employment status, family status and duration within the UK. The use of ethnicity to inform the sampling framework was limited. Following the interviews – a process of open coding was used to scrutinise all of the interview transcripts in order to break up the data and which highlighted the importance of a number of new issues of 176

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

relevance to superdiversity, such as recency of change, the importance of legal status and the visibility/invisibility of individuals. Axial coding was then used to put the data back together in new ways in order to consider the respective importance of redistribution, recognition and encounter, and the challenges to urban planning associated with new migrants in a context of emerging superdiversity (see Table 8.1). Table 8.1: Details of sampling and respondents: Liverpool case studies Study

Methods

Sampling of migrants

Respondents’ country of origin

Immigration status

Study 1 2009-10

Interviews with migrants (43)

Snowball sampling of migrants but based around securing maximum variation in immigration status, age, gender and country of origin

Poland (12) Ukraine (7) Russia (6) Iran (6) Africa (Somalia, Yemen) (7) India (5)

Economic migrants – Accession and non-EU migrants, refugees

Sampling of migrants via community groups, word of mouth, leafleting

France (1) Somalia (2) Iran (2) Portugal (1) Poland (3)

EU Accession country migrants

Maximum variation sampling of Accession migrants by age, gender, country of birth, family status, employment status, duration in UK

Poland (5) Czech Republic (2) Czech Roma (2) Slovakia (3) Slovenia (3) Estonia (2) Lithuania (2) Latvia (1)

EU Accession country migrants

Interviews with policy-makers/ practitioners and local councillors (including planning officers and regeneration/ community development officers – 11 in total) Study 2 2010

Focus group with migrants (9)

Interviews with practitioners (as above – 7 in total) Study 3 2010–11

Interviews with migrants (20)

177

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Redistribution, recognition and encounter, and the challenge of superdiversity for urban planning Redistribution

Redistribution relates to the judgements and actions of urban planners – among others – in balancing competing interests and attempting to address issues of disadvantage and inequality (Healey, 1997). Such ambitions often relate more broadly to state/market/civil society relationships and the nature of welfare regimes. In Liverpool, two important issues arose in respect of redistribution. First, emerging superdiversity in the city meant that urban planners faced particular difficulties in both identifying and responding to the needs of different residents: “there is a big push now on engaging minority communities as the lack of intelligence and statistics on such communities is a key issue in terms of addressing particular needs” (Planning Officer, Liverpool). This has also been reflected in the latest Statement of Community Involvement associated with the development of the Liverpool Local Plan (LCC, 2013b), and which highlights the need to engage with a number of ‘hard to reach groups’, including ‘transient populations and new residents’. Second, and for many respondents, class-based differences in the city were seen to be the critical issue and were of primary importance in respect of activities of redistribution at the neighbourhood level. In the words of one interviewee: “the one thing linked to everybody is poverty…the white working class in the city is the big issue to deal with…we’re playing a numbers game” (Local Strategic Partnership Officer, Liverpool). Such sentiments were also picked up in the Race Equality Impact Assessment for the NewHeartlands Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Initiative (WM Consultants, 2006, 42) and which noted how ‘local authority officers and local residents were living in parallel worlds and that “class” was the biggest divider’. Hence in contrast to a focus on ethnic or cultural diversity, in cities or neighbourhoods of emerging superdiversity, a focus on class-based differences by urban planners may be more evident: “the impact around the city will be less if we just focus on the needs of ethnic minority communities… the whole job is a balancing act about which neighbourhoods and groups you invest resources in” (Local Strategic Partnership Co-ordinator, Liverpool). Nevertheless, the approach may equivalise differences between residents and conceal structural forms of inequality and discrimination in shaping access to services and facilities in the neighbourhood. In the words of another respondent: 178

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

‘The response that we have got a bigger problem in addressing the needs of white working class males in Liverpool is institutional discrimination and racism at its best. Because at the end of the day while you have to take care of the white working class – because you cannot forget about your “own” – you have still got legislation to consider other groups subject to racial discrimination. Why can’t you do it all? You can’t just cherry pick.’ (Local councillor, LCC) Accordingly, there is a need to acknowledge that some groups are more likely to be discriminated against and exploited than others, and hence require a specific focus in the context of urban planning and redistribution activities. In this respect, it was argued that a practical step forward would involve planning policies at a city and neighbourhood level being much more flexible in respect of change of use of land and property in order to facilitate access for all residents to a variety of infrastructure in the city; to highlight where increasing superdiversity may make this more difficult for some groups; and to respond to particular needs over and beyond those of a particular (dominant) ethnic minority. For example, the existing Unitary Development Plan (LCC, 2002, 25) highlights the need for ‘equality of access to employment, housing, shopping, community and leisure opportunities’. Operationalising such ambitions at a local level is therefore a key priority for the emerging Liverpool Local Plan (LCC, 2013b). Recognition

Recognition involves urban planners identifying the specific needs of individuals and their subsequent attempts to address them (Amin and Thrift, 2002). Traditional (‘affirmative’) models of recognition have been based on the imagined or projected identities of individuals or groups being a product of pre-existing differences, and which themselves have emerged from a shared set of experiences or needs (Fraser, 2003). However, the approach fails to recognise the importance of ‘within group’ differences, or that individuals may belong to more than one group (Calhoun, 1994). Through the lens of superdiversity, there is therefore a need for urban planners to recognise that identities can be forged through difference, are relational and open to change and transformation, and may extend beyond a singular concern with ethnic identity. A number of existing studies (for example, McDowell, 2009) have argued that new European migrants who are ‘white’ are more likely to be privileged despite their particular circumstances. However, a number of points emerged from the research in Liverpool that offered a differing perspective. First, recognition of the needs of such individuals in an 179

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

increasingly super-diverse city by urban planners may be more difficult due to such ‘whiteness’ and their relative invisibility: “There is less stuff about this community (EU Accession migrants), partly because they are white… you can be more invisible, can’t you?” (Chief Executive, Community Support Organisation, Liverpool). A key question is how urban planners should therefore respond in order to identify the needs of those individuals who are less visible. It was identified that a focus on language could be one option: “If it weren’t for their accents you wouldn’t know they weren’t local lads…what impact has this had…probably a lack of take-up of services” (Planning Officer, Liverpool). A second option involves a greater consideration by urban planners of the importance of identity and attachment to place. An assumption frequently made is that migrants cohere in distinct ethnic communities (Boschman and van Ham, 2015) and with the identity of such places reflecting a dominant ethnic group. However, in super-diverse neighbourhoods such identities can be increasingly layered, mixed and often hidden (Wessendorf, 2014). This was exemplified in the responses of Accession country migrants, who exhibited ‘invisibility’. For example, a number of interviewees discussed how they had struggled to express their sense of identity in the context of super-diverse neighbourhoods given their recency of arrival and the transience and churn of individuals moving in and out. While some local facilities had emerged (for example, Polish shops), overall there was a general sense of being unconnected with the neighbourhood: “I haven’t built any strong links to people here…this is not a reason for keeping me here” (Slovak male migrant, Liverpool). Thus in the context of emerging superdiversity urban planners need to recognise that the invisibility of many individuals can also have an impact on affinity with the neighbourhood and the projection of individual and place identity. This in turn can result in the needs of certain groups being hidden. Certainly, this needs to be picked up through the Statement of Community Involvement (LCC, 2013c), which is reflective of an underlying commitment by the City Council to ensure that the needs of those less visible are recognised in participation processes, as well as through the Liverpool Local Plan as it is finalised. The Neighbourhood Forums that are emerging in different parts of the city – and which require membership to be drawn from different sections of the community (see Localism Act 2011, 61F para. 7 a(ii) (DCLG, 2011)) – in order to produce local Neighbourhood Development Plans will also be crucial in facilitating the recognition of different interests and needs. Finally, a superdiversity lens highlights the importance of legal status and recognition. Interviewees highlighted how recognition of need – and the subsequent ability of urban planners to respond was highly differentiated 180

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

according to migration channel/legal status. As one officer stated: “Our communities are changing with migration…you need different services because you have different groups with different challenges…but there is a need for greater recognition of who can be supported” (Local Strategic Partnership Officer, Liverpool). This can, however, operate in complex ways. On the one hand, it may be politically problematic to develop formal urban planning responses that take into account those without rights to public goods or services. But on the other, it may actually be easier to locate and to recognise such individuals and their needs in comparison with those subject to fewer restrictions on access to work and benefits, but who may be more invisible. Again, the ability to embed the Council’s Equality and Diversity objectives for 2016–20 – and which highlight the need to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of the city’s communities into the Liverpool Local Plan – will be important in this respect. Encounter

Encounter can support the interaction between individuals, potentially bringing together different identities (Amin and Thrift, 2002). Indeed, the recognition of need and associated responses in respect of directing resource allocation may emerge from individual encounters within particular spaces and ‘micro-public’ sites such as workplaces, shops, schools, youth clubs, libraries, swimming pools, the gym and community organisations (Amin, 2002). Nevertheless, in relation to superdiversity, there is a need to consider how urban planners may need to respond to individuals in increasingly diversified settings in order for individuals to experiment with identifications and to secure conviviality (encounters with a purpose) with others (Fincher and Iveson, 2008, 153–4). In Liverpool, A8 nationals and non-EU migrants noted the critical importance of a number of micro-public sites to facilitate meaningful encounters. These were not necessarily associated with any specific ethnic or national group and were reflective of the everyday lives of many individuals living in super-diverse neighbourhoods. For example: “I do bodybuilding. We are a very diverse group of people but when we are inside, you don’t see any differences, it doesn’t matter whether you are white or black. A kilogram is the same for each.” (Portuguese male migrant, Liverpool). Equally, it was apparent that there was variation between interviewees in respect of both their ability and willingness to experience new encounters in micro-public spaces. For example, in terms of the workplace, there may be divisions based on ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines, as well as 181

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

nationality, legal status and education (see Grzymala-Kazlowska, 2005; Fomina, 2009): “I like educated people…talking to them, so it doesn’t matter if they are migrant workers or local people; it’s a matter of shared interests and similar ideas; It is not always a matter of ethnicity or the country of origin.” (Polish migrant, Liverpool) Resources, identity and dispositions, perceptions and interpretations and notions of place can also shape in-group variability and individuals’ ability to experience encounter (also see Hickman et al, 2007). But of particular relevance to this study are experiences of discrimination and hostility by others based upon visible diversity. For some, this impinged upon their disposition to share encounters with other migrants who were more visibly different in super-diverse areas: “Most Romani people have never been in these nice areas and probably will never go because of the discrimination. They just go to work, go back home and watch out from their windows.” (Czech Roma female migrant, Liverpool). Interestingly, however, even those with visible diversity may experience differences in their ability to experience encounter. In-group variability may be informed by particular identities and dispositions: ‘I was just talking to an African friend of mine; she said “I wouldn’t want to meet people in Liverpool 8 because it is almost like you have to be ‘professionally black’ to live there.” There is a hierarchy…if you are Liverpool-born black then, you know, you have got more status.’ (Somalian refugee, Liverpool) Hence the messages that arise for urban planners seeking to facilitate meaningful encounters between individuals in areas of emerging superdiversity are that i) a focus on facilitating micro-public spaces is equally as important as the creation of more traditional spaces (for example, public parks or squares) to develop encounter; ii) not all micro-public spaces – and indeed other spaces – lead to the same shared (positive) experience and outcomes due to variation in individuals’ dispositions, resources and associated legal status; and iii) more fundamentally, it cannot be assumed that encounter and conviviality will take place in shared spaces. With reference to planning frameworks in Liverpool, arguably the neighbourhood plans that are emerging across the city will again be pivotal in highlighting the micro-public spaces of relevance to meaningful encounter, as well as facilitating access and engagement by different groups in such spaces. Through highlighting the allocation of land for particular activities in Neighbourhood Development Plans, as well as through the use of Community Right to Build Orders (and which involve individuals who are unrelated to the neighbourhood planning process being able to build, 182

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

design and run particular facilities, which is an important distinction), locally driven encounters may be promoted.

Discussion A broad theme that emerged from the research is the need to move beyond ethno-cultural approaches that have delineated neighbourhoods and provided services in line with the perceived dominance of a single ethnic group (Berg and Sigona, 2013); that have sought to reflect ethnic and cultural diversity in the physical form of the city (Sandercock, 1998); and which have adopted ethnic-focused routes of engagement (Qadeer, 1997; Uyesugi and Shipley, 2005). More specifically, the use of superdiversity as both a method and policy has highlighted a number of key challenges facing urban planners. Two issues particularly stood out from the research conducted in Liverpool, namely i) the recency and dynamic nature of superdiversity as well as how such a concept is framed; and ii) the importance of legal status and the visibility associated with individuals residing in super-diverse neighbourhoods. In respect of the recency and dynamic nature of superdiversity, populations are increasingly differentiated, and with population churn being a key feature of emerging superdiversity (Berg and Sigona, 2013), both at a city and neighbourhood level. While some individuals are ‘hypermobile’ and transient, others are relatively fixed. This was reflected in the varying responses of individuals who noted the differential importance of the neighbourhood in shaping engagement in everyday activity spaces and their projection of identity. There is a requirement to develop approaches that are accommodating of the fluidity and hybridity of populations and the changing use of land or property. As such, both a relational and territorial perspective of super-diverse neighbourhoods is required given that some may use the neighbourhood as a key activity space while others may use the city or even beyond (Tasan-Kok et al, 2014). Urban planners therefore need to understand how increasing population complexity and population churn impinges on individuals’ spaces of dependence (including place attachment and the nature of local services that may be required) and their spaces of engagement, which equally may impinge on demands for services (for example, health and/or employment) both in the neighbourhood and in other parts of the city (see Cox, 1998). There is also a need to consider how increasing population complexity may be reflected vertically (within property) as well as across the neighbourhood/city. Consequently, strategic planning frameworks such as the Liverpool Local Plan will need to incorporate some degree of flexibility in respect of focusing on future demographic change – as well as existing 183

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

demographic pressures – that may emerge in different parts of the city, and the associated demands for particular activities. At a more local level, Neighbourhood Development Plans will also be important in responding to the changing needs and requirements of all local residents in superdiverse neighbourhoods, and in assigning usage (and flexibility of usage) to different tracts of land. However, their ability to perform such a role will be heavily dependent on the extent to which communities are able to meaningfully challenge and shape strategic development plans, as neighbourhood plans need to be in conformity with the city level plan (Sagoe, 2016) – and in this instance the Liverpool Local Plan. In addition, there is a need to acknowledge the importance of class-based differences in informing socio-economic diversity and how such issues may be of particular relevance in cities and neighbourhoods of emerging superdiversity, and especially where deprivation is both concentrated and widespread (as is the case of Liverpool). Thus transformative strategies – as highlighted by Fraser (1997) – are required by urban planners to overcome economic and cultural injustices. Furthermore, any attempts to redistribute resources need to be based around recognition of the differences and interconnections between different aspects of superdiversity on which inequalities are based (for example, ethnicity, culture, nationality and gender). In this respect Race Equality Impact Assessments and Equality and Diversity strategies will be important in terms of how they inform strategic and local planning frameworks. To summarise, there is a need to move beyond acting in the ‘public good’ for a single dominant ethnic group in the city – the reality is that there are multiple ‘public interests’ that need to be addressed through ‘parity of participation’ in planning processes (Fraser, 2003; Divercities, 2014). Second, with respect to legal status and issues of visibility, access to services and facilities in super-diverse neighbourhoods is heavily influenced by legal/immigration status (Phillimore, 2013). This is another distinctive feature associated with such areas. However, it was apparent that urban planners were not always entirely clear as to how their efforts to respond to increasing superdiversity should be targeted. This can subsequently impinge on efforts to secure redistribution. In turn, this leads to a consideration of the respective visibility (and/ or invisibility) of particular individuals or groups. For those more visible, urban planners need to recognise the importance of super-diverse neighbourhoods in providing an environment where those visibly different can avoid discrimination that may be more evident elsewhere in the city. But at the same time, such environments need to facilitate integration for all and not selectively focus on particular groups or individuals.

184

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

For those less visible, interviewees highlighted how they had often struggled to express their identity and belonging through the neighbourhood due to their recency of arrival; due to the transience of individuals moving in and out; and due – in many instances – to a general unfamiliarity with visible diversity. This was shaping ‘negative pathologies’ of place-making (Gill, 2010). Thus, urban planners need to consider alternative ways of engaging with and identifying those less visible. For example, a greater focus on ‘linguistic landscapes’ (Blommaert, 2015) and signage can help to ascertain where new groups may be concentrated or residing. Again, this could be picked up in the Statement of Community Involvement and its focus on different mechanisms to engage ‘hard to reach’ groups.

Conclusion This chapter has explored a number of challenges that superdiversity poses to urban planning in cities and neighbourhoods that are becoming increasingly super-diverse. Through a focus on the concepts of redistribution, recognition and encounter, a first key contribution of the chapter has been to highlight how a focus by urban planners on classbased differences – over and above ethnic and cultural differences per se – may be of relevance in terms of attempts to address social and economic inequalities in areas of emerging superdiversity. But at the same time this may increase the risk of urban planning equivalising differences between residents and concealing issues of racism and discrimination. A second key contribution of the chapter relates to the focus on a city – and neighbourhoods – that are becoming increasingly superdiverse. In such places the fragmentation and speed of change can make it more difficult for urban planners to make (redistribution) judgements about competing claims, and especially where ‘invisible’ diversity may exist – and which may subsequently make recognition and encounter activities more problematic. Furthermore, in order not to underplay ethnic or racial discrimination, it is even more critical in the context of increasing superdiversity for urban planners to use a variety of tools – some strongly interventionist (such as the use of the Statement of Community Involvement, Race Equality Impact Assessments and Equality and Diversity strategies that enforce such principles in respect of housing development and allocations, for example) and some more ‘informal’ (for example, relaxing planning controls on change of use through Supplementary Planning Guidance) to address such issues (also see Fincher et al, 2014). Third, migration channel and legal status are crucial in shaping and informing a ‘superdiversity’ politics. However, the socio-demographic 185

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

characteristics of individuals (for example, age or gender), their identities and dispositions and perceptions, as well as their subsequent experiences also need to be recognised in shaping outcomes – and indeed can shape variation in need between those with a similar legal or immigration status. Finally, context is all-important. Superdiversity in the UK remains concentrated within a relatively small number of urban areas (Sepulveda et al, 2011, 5). Consequently, the central importance of ethnicity in respect of diversity, and associated planning discourses and practices under multiculturalism may continue to be important elsewhere. Nevertheless, broader issues of recognition, rights of access and entitlement, neighbourhood functionality and the role of micro-public spaces will be of importance to planners in other areas, too. For example, some of the world’s largest migration flows have been in the global South and where concerns with social justice have led to a focus on how urban planners ‘balance the logics of governing increasing superdiversity in ways that facilitate the creation of “proper” urban communities (whatever these might be) in “proper” urban environments’ (Watson, 2009, 2268). This chapter therefore sets an agenda for future research exploring the extent to which superdiversity within different cities shapes the nature of urban planning. Note 1 Including the Core strategy sustainability appraisal (LCC, 2005a), the Core strategy issues and options paper (LCC, 2005b), the Core strategy preferred options and Revised preferred options reports (LCC, 2008; 2010), the Core strategy submission draft (LCC, 2012a), the Core strategy equalities impact assessment (LCC, 2012b) and the Statement of community involvement (LCC, 2007; 2013c (updated)). References Adams, D. (2001) Urban planning and the development process, Abingdon: Routledge. Amin, A. (2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city, Environment and Planning: A, vol 34, no 6, pp 959–80. Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban, Cambridge: Polity Press. Baumann, G. (1996) Contesting culture: Discourses of identity in multi-ethnic London, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Becares, L., Shaw, R., Nazroo, J., Stafford, M., Atkin, K., Albor, C., Kiernan, K., Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2012) Ethnic density effects of physical morbidity, mortality and health behaviors: A systematic review of the literature, American Journal of Public Health, vol 102, no 12, pp 33–66. 186

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

Beebeejaun, Y. (2004) What’s in a nation? Constructing ethnicity in the British planning system, Planning Theory and Practice, vol 5, no 4, pp 437–51. Beebeejaun, Y. (2012) Including the excluded? Changing the understandings of ethnicity in contemporary English planning, Planning Theory and Practice, vol 13, no 4, pp 529–54. Berg, M.L. and Sigona, N. (2013) Ethnography, diversity and urban space, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, vol 20, no 4, pp 347–60. Blommaert, J. (2015) Commentary: Super-diversity old and new, Language and Communication, vol 44, no 1, pp 82-89. Boschman, S. and van Ham, M. (2015) Neighbourhood selection of nonwestern ethnic minorities: Testing the own-group effects hypothesis using a conditional logit model, Environment and Planning, vol 47, pp 1155–74. Brownill, S. and Carpenter, J. (2007) Increasing participation in planning: Emergent experiences of the reformed planning system in England, Planning, Practice and Research, vol 22, no 4, pp 619–34. Burayidi, M.A. (2003) The multicultural city as planners’ enigma, Planning Theory and Practice, vol 4, no 3, pp 259-273. Calhoun, C. (1994) Social theory and the politics of identity, in C. Calhoun (ed) Social theory and the politics of identity, Oxford: Blackwell, pp 9–36. Campbell, H. (2006) Just planning: The art of situated ethical judgment, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol 26, no 1, pp 92–106. Committee on Public Participation in Planning (1969) People and planning: Report of the Committee on Public Participation in Planning (the Skeffington Report), London: HMSO Cox, K, 1998, Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics, Political Geography, vol 17, no 1, pp 1–23. DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government)/HM Treasury (2011) Localism Act, London: DCLG/HM Treasury. Divercities (2014) Governing diversity, European Policy Brief, Brussels: European Commission. Fincher, R. and Iveson, K. (2008) Planning and diversity in the city: Redistribution, recognition and encounter, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H. and Preston, V. (2014) Planning in the multicultural city: celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference?, Progress in Planning, vol 92, pp 1–55. Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices, New York: Oxford University Press.

187

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Fomina, J, 2009, Swiaty równoległe – wizerunek własny Polaków w Wielkiej Brytanii (Parallel worlds: Poles’ self-image in the UK), Warsaw: Institute of Social Policy, www.isp.org.pl/publikacje,25,473.html Fraser, N. (1997) Critical reflections on the postsocialist condition, New York: Routledge. Fraser, N. (2003) Social Justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition and participation, in N. Fraser and A. Honneth (eds) Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange, London and New York: Verso, pp 7–109. Gale, R. (2005) Representing the city: Mosques and the planning process in Birmingham, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 31, no 6, pp 1161–79. Gale, R. (2008) Locating religion in urban planning: Beyond ‘race’ and ethnicity?, Planning Practice and Research, vol 23, no 1, pp 19–39. Gill, N. (2010) Pathologies of migrant place making: The case of Polish migrants to the UK, Environment and Planning A, vol 42, pp 1157–73. GLA (Greater London Authority) (2005) GLA economics annual report, London: GLA. Grzymala-Kazlowska, A. (2005) From ethnic cooperation to in-group competition: undocumented Polish workers in Brussels, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 31, no 4, pp 675–97. Harris, N. and Thomas, H. (2004) Planning for a diverse society? A review of the UK government’s planning policy guidance, Town Planning Review, vol 75, no 4, pp 473–500. Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, London: MacMillan. Healey, P. (1998) Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning, Sage: London. Hickman, P., Robinson, D., Casey, R., Green, S. and Powell, R. (2007) Understanding housing demand: Learning from rising markets in Yorkshire and the Humber, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Kymlicka, W. (2010) The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies, International Social Science Journal, vol 61, no 199, pp 97–112. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2002) Unitary development plan, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2005a) Core strategy sustainability appraisal, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2005b) Core strategy issues and options paper, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2007) Statement of community involvement, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. 188

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2008) Core strategy preferred options, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2010) Revised core strategy preferred options, Liverpool, Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2011) Equality and diversity policy statement, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2012a) Core strategy – Submission draft, Liverpool, Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2012b) Core strategy equalities impact assessment, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2013a) Local migration profile, Number 13 (November 2013), Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2013b) Shaping the Liverpool local plan, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2013c) Statement of community involvement, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. LCC (Liverpool City Council) (2016) Equality and diversity policy statement, Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. Liverpool BRM (Black and Racial Minorities) Network (2014) Liverpool BRM action plan, Liverpool, Liverpool BRM Network. Liverpool First (2009) Liverpool 2024: A thriving international city, Liverpool: Liverpool First. McDowell, L. (2009) Old and new European economic migrants: Whiteness and managed migration policies, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol 35, no 1, pp 19-36. Meissner, F. and Vertovec, S. (2015) Comparing super-diversity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 38, no 4, pp 541–55. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2004) Statement of community involvement, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2005) Diversity and equality in planning: A good practice guide, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. ONS (Office for National Statistics) (2011) 2011 Census Data, www. ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/index.html Pemberton, S. and Phillimore, J. (2016) Migrant place-making in superdiverse neighbourhoods: Moving beyond ethno-national approaches, Urban Studies, doi:10.1177/0042098016656988 Perrons, D. and Skyer, S. (2003) Empowerment through participation? Conceptual explorations and a case study, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol 27, no 2, pp 265–85.

189

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

Pestieau, K. and Wallace, M. (2003) Challenges and opportunities for planning in the ethno-culturally diverse city: A collection of papers – introduction, Planning Theory and Practice, vol 4, no 3, pp 253–8. Phillimore, J. (2013) Housing, home and neighbourhood renewal in the era of super-diversity: Some lessons from the West Midlands, Housing Studies, vol 28, no 5, pp 682–700. Planning Advisory Group (1965) The future of development plans, London: Planning Advisory Group. Qadeer, M.A. (1997) Pluralistic planning for multicultural Cities: The Canadian practice, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol 63, no 4, pp 481–94. Qadeer, M.A. and Agrawal, S.K. (2011) The practice of multicultural planning in American and Canadian cities, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, vol 20, no 1, pp 132–56. Raco, M., Kesten, J. and Colomb, C. (2014) Urban policies on diversity in London, United Kingdom, London: Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute)/CRE (Commission for Racial Equality) (1983) Planning for a multi-racial Britain, London: RTPI. Sagoe, C. (2016) One tool against many: Considering the political potential of neighbourhood planning for the Greater Carpenters Neighbourhood, London, Architecture, Media, Politics, Society, vol 9, no 3, pp 1–20. Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards cosmopolis, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Sandercock, L. (2003) Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities of the 21st century, London: Continuum. Sepulveda, L., Syrett, S. and Lyon, F. (2011) Population super-diversity and new migrant enterprise: The case of London, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol 23, no 7–8, pp 469–97. Tasan-Kok, T., Van Kempen, R., Raco, M. and Bolt, G. (2014) Towards hyper-diversified European cities: A critical literature review, Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Thomas, H. (1995) ‘Race’, public policy and planning in Britain, Planning Perspectives, vol 10, no 2, pp 123–48. Thomas, H. (2000) Race and planning: The UK experience, London: UCL Press. Thomas, H. (2008) Race equality and planning: A changing agenda, Planning Practice and Research, vol 23, no 1, pp 1–17. Uyesugi, J.L. and Shipley, R. (2005) Visioning diversity: Planning Vancouver’s multicultural communities, International Planning Studies, vol 10, no 3–4, pp 305–22.

190

Urban planning and the challenge of superdiversity

Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol 30, no 6, pp 1024–54. Vertovec, S. (2010) Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity, International Social Science Journal, vol 61, no 199, pp 83–95. Vertovec, S. (2011) Migration and new diversities in global cities: Comparatively conceiving, observing and visualizing diversification in urban public spaces, www. mmg.mpg.de/?id=579 Vertovec, S. (2012) Diversity and the social imaginary, European Journal of Sociology, vol 53, no 3, pp 287–312. Watson, S. (2009) Seeing from the south: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues, Urban Studies, vol 46, no 11, pp 2259–75. Wessendorf, S. (2014) Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. WM Consultants (2006) Race equality impact assessment for the New Heartlands Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Initiative (2006), Birmingham: WM Consultants.

191

CHAPTER NINE

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city: a comparative analysis of backlash narratives in six European neighbourhoods Ole Jensen

Introduction Over the past decade, the concept of superdiversity has alerted us to the proliferation of differences characterising urban spaces, making us question existing categories and re-think the multilayered nature of social configurations. Demographics across Europe point to an increasing number of local ‘majority minority’ areas, where the national majority population no longer constitutes a local majority. Similarly, there has also been a diversification of origin countries over the past 30 years as well as a greater recognition of multivariable migration configurations (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015, 543, 550). Superdiversity has also, to put it crudely, proved a new way of mapping familiar spaces, however. Why new? Why familiar? Steve Vertovec’s pathbreaking introduction to ‘Superdiversity and its implications’ operated with a broad-brush approach, using UK national level quantitative data to demonstrate superdiversity as ‘a new kind of complexity surpassing anything the country has previously experienced’ (Vertovec, 2007, 1024). Much subsequent work into this complexity would, however, seem situated in gritty inner-city areas already recognised as diverse according to previously established categories based on race and ethnicity (Wessendorf, 2013; Hall, 2012). But many such studies are also subject to a ‘territorial fallacy’ whereby the space analysed becomes an island unto itself, disconnected from a wider urban context (Soja, 2001), with geographical boundaries pre-defined in the research design rather than emerging from the actual research. Whereas there is a long-standing recognition of the local as globally produced, analyses often fail to situate the superdiverse locality within the broader context of socio-economic transformation brokered by post-industrialism and neoliberalism (Soja, 2001; Hickman et al, 2012). It is the aim of this chapter to draw attention how this broader context impact localised social dynamics. The main question is, accordingly: How 192

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

does the urban setting condition emerging us/them distinctions at neighbourhood level? This framing represents an understanding of inter-group dynamics as processes in situational time, positioning the city as a generative space rather than a mere canvas (Walter and Uitermark, 2016, 878). Accordingly, this focus on underlying urban dynamics marks a departure from approaches based on pre-defined categories based on migrant status, ethnicity, religion or class. For the purpose of this analysis, this involves paying particular attention to the nature and make-up of backlash narratives, as these essentially represent localised responses to changing power dynamics and resource allocations. Whereas David Hewitt’s conceptualisation of white backlash draws on North American literature on Us–Them distinctions configured on racial grounds (Hewitt, 2005), the notion of settled backlash which will be pursued here, emerges from a multiaxial conceptualisation of diversity based on a recognition that ‘race and ethnicity remain central to social divisions, alongside class, religion, gender, age, and sexuality, whose intersections shape the social hierarchies of place’ (Hickman et al, 2012, 81). While obviously drawing on the same proliferation of diversity that is the key characteristic of superdiversity, the backlash frame allows for a more targeted analysis of how, where and why the proliferation of diversity may escalate into areas of concern and tension. The analysis of backlash narratives draws on findings from fieldwork carried out at neighbourhood level in three European cities (Barcelona, London and Turin), and the research design and methodological implications will be outlined in the next section. Subsequently, the conceptualisations of the post-industrial city will be discussed, with particular emphasis on the application of Edward Soja’s multiscalar view of the city. It will then explore the relationship between postindustrial urban dynamics and emerging backlash narratives in the six selected neighbourhoods. Finally, the chapter will discuss how one-off neighbourhood forums (NFs) staged in each neighbourhood served to verify research findings while also providing insights into inter-group relations at neighbourhood level.

Research design This chapter is based on findings from the EU-funded research project Concordia Discors.1 The aim of the project was to explore inter-group relations in neighbourhoods characterised by different levels of migration, different traditions of civic engagement and differently constituted communities. In each participating city, two neighbourhoods were selected, characterised by different histories of immigration. In each neighbourhood 193

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

30–40 semi-structured interviews were carried out over the course of the fieldwork, and the interview material was supplemented with quantitative data as well as analyses of relevant local policy interventions and media representations of the neighbourhoods. This is, accordingly, a comparative analysis, involving six neighbourhoods in three cities (Barcelona, London and Turin), with implications for both the level of analytical scrutiny in situ and the nature of cross-national comparisons. The universalist approach to cross-national comparison has been criticised for ignoring specific contexts and for treating cultural factors as exogenous variables (Hantrais, 1999, 95). Culturalism, on the other hand, places so much emphasis on the specificity and distinctiveness of social contexts that comparisons and generalisations become very difficult (Hantrais, 1999, 96). Aiming to steer a course between universalist and culturalist approaches, Maurice argues that all international comparisons should aim to demonstrate the effect of the broader context on the unit of study. Accordingly, analytical emphasis should be on the relationship between the macro and the micro (Maurice, 1989, in Hantrais, 1999, 96–7). Necessary limitations to comparative research are also expressed in the idea of a setting. While a context connects the components of interaction to broader properties of the institutionalisation of social life (Giddens, 1984, 119), a setting comprises the set of circumstances in which social actors are placed. Accordingly, it becomes an analytical construct where some of the complexity of the subject matter has been suppressed (Mitchell, 1987, 17; Mitchell, 1983, 205). Like a photo with its contrasts enhanced in post-processing, the comparative analysis does away with some of the nuances and subtlety that a single-sited study can capture. So where more fine-grained analyses may capture backlash narratives relating to episodes that are clearly demarcated in time and space, focus here is on how evolving inter-group relations can be understood by reference to broader urban dynamics. The fieldwork consisted of three stages: topical interviews with local stakeholders, including traders, publicans, community activists and local government frontline staff; based on the first round of interviews, three sites of interaction were identified in each neighbourhood – housing estates (London), public garden, squares, a municipal bath. The next round of interviews was focused on residents and users of these sites in order to gain a deeper understanding of site-specific social dynamics; after completion of the interviews, NFs were staged, one in each neighbourhood, in order to discuss research findings and provide a broader platform for discussion of neighbourhood relations. Upon completion of the fieldwork, thematic analyses of the findings were carried out by each national research team,

194

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

with the findings synthesised (in English) in national reports. The empirical sections of this chapter is based on these reports. Evidently, a multisited and multipartner research design also comes with weaknesses and trade-offs. In order to ascertain some level of replicability across all participating cities, all stage two interviews were based on a jointly developed thematic guide. But the selection of research participants was contingent on trade-offs between access, availability and time constraints. Accordingly, under-represented groups would typically include recently arrived immigrants, individuals in full-time employment and the under-30 age group.

Exploring the post-industrial context Terms like the ‘global city’ have become familiar and increasingly evident through a continued increase in the number of ‘majority minority’ cities and smaller administrative units, where the national majority population has come to constitute a local minority. Through a proliferation of destination points and the increasing connectedness generated by continuously expanding communication technologies, the global city can be mapped and understood in terms of from where its residents derive. Similarly, transnational scholarship has evolved around a recognition of multidirectional social relations stretching across time and space (Smith and Guarnizo, 1998; Hastrup and Olwig, 1997; Glick Schiller et al, 1992). This emphasis on ‘cultural sites’, evolving in the interrelationship between local and global ties (Hastrup and Olwig, 1997, 17), resonates well with the ethnographic detail and social constructionist perspectives characterising much research under the superdiversity umbrella. Scholarship on the neoliberal restructuring of cities have, however, only had little to contribute to the understanding of the interplay between migration and urban transformation (Glick Schiller and Caglar, 2009, 177–8). Post-industrialism is associated with a range of profound transitions, most evidently the shift from manufacturing to service employment as well as the associated transformation of urban spaces from manufacturing to residential uses. Whereas this transition has been explored, most studies are characterised by a deprivation focus, as they almost exclusively have addressed the residualised, post-industrial poor while ignoring the post-industrial middle-classes (Byrne, 2002, 281). Similarly, associations with the industrial past have served to reify certain social structures, as argued by Tanja Blokland from her research in a working-class area in Rotterdam: ‘One can easily slide from observing class homogeneity as a categorical characteristic of a geographically-delineated neighbourhood to an assumption of a categorically-based cohesion within that area’ 195

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

(Blokland, 2001, 268). Much less readily identifiable is, however, the manner in which the built-up urban landscape, the social structures and socio-spatial dynamics of the industrial past continue to inform boundary processes and place-making in the post-industrial present. This section aims to approach these processes through what Edward Soja refers to as a ‘multiscalar view of the city’, combining the localised and immediate expressions of place with an understanding of how the impact of exogenous geographies and political power may result in distributional inequalities (Soja, 2010, 32). In other words, spatial location will, in the urban context, entail degrees of advantage or disadvantage that are both historically constituted and emerging. It is when maintained over long periods of time and rooted in persistent divisions in society that such geographical differentiations can have oppressive and exploitative effects (Soja, 2010, 73). In articulating and unpacking this emerging disadvantage, Soja leans on the work of Iris Marion Young and Henri Lefebvre. Young urges a move away from a fixation on distributive justice to focus more on the structural forces that generate inequalities and injustice (Young, 1990, 47). Central to Young’s work is the elaboration of oppression and injustice into five distinct, but highly related and inter-acting forms: exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence. Whereas exploitation is understood as related to class relations, marginalisation involves the curtailing of full participation in social life. Powerlessness focuses on the draining away of political power and the capacity for selfexpression, and cultural imperialism constitutes a form of dominance whereby one group is subordinated by another. Finally, violence relates to social and institutional practices that tolerate or encourage violent acts as parts of daily life (Young, 1990, in Soja, 2010, 78–9). It is here that the backlash frame provides a means to understand subjective and collectively experienced disadvantage and trace the broader processes whereby inequality and disadvantage are produced. The emphasis on the generation of inequality also resonates with, and is given a spatial dimension by, Henri Lefebvre’s concept, ‘right to the city’, which is central to Soja’s work: ‘The right to the city, complemented by the right to difference and the right to information, should modify, concretise, and make more practical, the rights of the citizen as an urban dweller (citadin) and user of multiple services’ (Lefebvre, 1996, in Soja, 2010, 99). The right to the city is also recognised through a multidimensional conceptualisation of urban space. Whereas spatial analyses often are highly descriptive of existing conditions, or try to explain empirical patterns through spatial co-variation or association, this analysis will lean on Lefebvre’s distinction between material and imagined spaces: perceived 196

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

space is shaped by materialised and objectified spatial practices, like a ward or a district that are means of government belonging to politicians, demographers or urban planners; conceived space, subjective representations of space, manifest in the notion of neighbourhood as a socially produced, geographically defined space charged with individual meanings and, at times, shared memories and narratives that come to constitute what the neighbourhood is, implicitly excluding those who may not share that cultural bagage; lived space, a biographical and historical notion of lived time which is subjective and never entirely knowable (Lefebvre, 1991, in Soja, 2010, 102). A ‘subjective map’, developed in relation to one of the relating to one of the Concordia neighbourhoods (Poble Sec in Barcelona), illustrates these differences: When we put together those subjective maps of the neighbourhood, drawn from different people, we discovered a lot of different versions of Poble Sec. Because you can live in a territory which is limited by your city council, but mentally your boundaries are others. The rigid grid of streets belonging to the district between the harbour and the mountain suddenly became more flexible and elastic, represented with emotional proportions instead of measurable distances; using memory names instead of those more descriptive and empty of meaning from experience. (Segarra, 2013) As will be explained in more detail below, the neighbourhoods selected for the purpose of this research project were, first and foremost, perceived spaces. They were the minimum territorial aggregation unit, defined for purposes of administration and governance. Whereas these units could be represented through quantitative data-sets which, in theory, helped the cross-country analyses carried out as part of the project (Pastore and Ponzo, 2013), the fixed spatialities that these units constituted did not coincide with neither conceived nor lived spaces. The next section will explore the constituents of conceived and lived spaces within these territorial units.

Exploring neighbourhood diversity This section will first explore emerging patterns of immigration and settlement in neighbourhoods in London, Turin and Barcelona. Whereas Table 9.1 provides a summary of main trends in the six neighbourhoods, the analysis will address how social dynamics and boundary processes at neighbourhood level can be interpreted within the broader context of post-industrial developments. 197

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe Table 9.1: The neighbourhoods City

Barcelona

London

Turin

Neighbourhood

Population

Key characteristics

Total

Immigrant proportion (%)1

Sagrada Familia

52,167

16.9

Middle-class area (dormitory), loss of local identity. Immigrant proportion on a par with city average.

Poble Sec

40,340

27.9

Rapid increase in foreign-born population.

Bermondsey

43,714

56.41

Traditionally white working-class area, non-white immigrants arriving largely since 1980s. Pockets of deprivation adjacent to affluent, gated communities.

Camberwell

40,885

65.21

Long-established arrival area. Concentration of black minorities, pockets of gentrification.

Barriera di Milano

50,990

29.0

Deprived area, urban blight, immigrant arrival area, targeted through extensive, multi-sector regeneration project (2011–14).

San PaoloCenisia

76,096

14.0

Extensive redevelopment of industrial areas, ‘old’ immigrant settlement area, strong community organisations.

Note: 1 The figures listed here are first and foremost indicative. Immigrant and ethnic minority populations are categories that are defined differently across the different countries that were part of the research project. Sources: Busso et al, 2012; ONS, 2012; Moren-Alegret et al, 2012

London

Bermondsey and Camberwell are inner-city areas located in respectively the northern and central part of the London Borough of Southwark. Situated immediately south of the Thames, just east of Tower Bridge, Bermondsey developed into a tight-knit, geographically well-defined white working-class area over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Known as the ‘larder of London’, livelihoods were tied in with employment in the docklands and related industries. With a tight-knit, social fabric underpinned by overlapping spheres of employment, ethnicity and community, Bermondsey also gained a reputation as an area where it was difficult for outsiders to settle (Jensen and Gidley, 2016). 198

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

A product of industrial London, working-class Bermondsey became the refuse of post-industrialism. The 1980s re-development of the abandoned docklands into expensive riverfront housing was emblematic of the displacement of working-class livelihoods – as expressed in a local song: ‘But the ships are no more and the docks are all flats/Now there’s rich people running round instead of the rats’ (in Jensen and Gidley, 2016). Long-term residents on a nearby housing estate also pointed to a history of tensions: ‘Like I said, some are really nice and some, I don’t know, they just seem to think “council people poor people”, you know, no manners. But it works both ways, because when they started moving into the area, we had a gang of people that lived across the road there – the flats are no longer there – and they were getting children of the estate to go and rob the cars round there coz they thought they were rich people, they can afford to lose things, so they were encouraging kids to go and steal from them. So you get both sides of it, you know.’ (white British resident on Dickens Estate, aged 52). At the same time, the long-term impact of legislative changes towards needs-based housing allocation contributed to a rapid increase in the immigrant and ethnic minority population in the area (Carter, 2008), with the white British population shrinking to 45 per cent in 2011 (ONS, 2012). But the relative suddenness of the increase also resulted in an overlaying of generational and ethnic/racial boundaries: ‘You had the [white] pensioners who lived here, and then you had the equivalent of their grandchildren who were people from all over who had been allocated that housing. So there were younger, kind of black people coming in, whereas there was none of [the] old black generation, you felt, in the area. There also wasn’t the middle-aged people and what I’ve found as a community worker here was pensioners were saying what had happened was their children had not been able to get housing in the area.’ (Community activist, aged 50, in Jensen et al, 2012, 8) The reaction to this opening up of Bermondsey to outsiders, and the related loss of local work and local housing, has been interpreted as a ‘traditional’ white backlash. This interpretation has been consolidated through the association between Bermondsey and the British National Party (BNP), with BNP staging St George’s Day marches in Bermondsey 199

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

up into the early 2000s. Similarly, Bermondsey was the only electoral ward in Southwark where a BNP candidate would stand for local elections – without, however, gaining more than 5 per cent of the votes. But while there was BNP support in Bermondsey, it has been argued that the neighbourhood was used by both BNP sympathisers and opponents coming in from the outside. Furthermore, BNP presence in Bermondsey has seen a downturn throughout the 2000s. In contrast to Bermondsey’s well-defined place in the mechanics of industrial London, Camberwell evolved as a place of continuous arrival and settlement, as the erstwhile village became a nineteenth-century Victorian suburb, and subsequently a late twentieth-century inner-city neighbourhood (Dyos, 1961). With the Georgian housing built in the eighteenth to ninteenth century by well-to-do middle-class people moving out of central London, and with many of the main road arteries dominated by Victorian housing, as well as social housing estates from the 1960s and 1970s, a much more heterogeneous, multiplex housing stock has, historically and in the present day, offered newcomers easier access to the neighbourhood. As opposed to the post-industrial shock experienced in Bermondsey, Camberwell has, for much longer, been a more fluid and changeable landscape of socio-economic ‘pockets’, with gentrified streets sitting next to social housing estates. With patterns of immigration and settlement that can be dated back to the post-Second World War Windrush immigrants, Camberwell is home to some of the biggest concentrations of black Caribbean and black African populations in London, with the combined black populations in central Camberwell making up 42.3 per cent of the 2011 total (ONS, 2012). The continuity of arrivals also means that Us–Them distinctions in many places had moved beyond a straightforward juxtaposition of majority and minority populations. Instead, low-level tensions have emerged between migrant groups defined in terms of length of stay and place of origin, and articulated through colonial history. ‘They said we sold them’, was how one Nigerian interviewee characterised the relations between black Africans and black Caribbean Camberwell residents (Jensen et al, 2012). Such distinctions, however, drawing on colonial history and the slave trade, were complicated by the experiences of both more recent immigrant groups and a growing, younger generation that would self-identify as black British. A British-born black woman of Ghanaian origin, in her 20s, would acknowledge but play down tensions between black populations: ‘Before there used to be tension between black and black as in, you know, even Nigerians and Ghanaians which are Africans, and there was definitely a problem within all the races, but now 200

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

we’ve come to a common ground of not seeing it as black, African, Caribbean, white. It’s just “Oh, we’re all Londoners”.’ (Camberwell resident, aged 23) (Jensen et al, 2012, 13) Her own distinctions had, however, shifted from ethnicity, colour and generation to educational status which, she felt, set her apart from the rest of her largely black peer group on the estate where she grew up: ‘Not to say that you have to go to Uni, but obviously, if I am in Uni, and you’re not, there is not really that much we can talk about’ (Jensen et al, 2012). In summary, the spatial and social fabric of the neighbourhoods needs to be read in the context of the broader development in post-industrial London that has helped shape distinct patterns. Whereas Bermondsey has moved beyond the association with BNP and overt expressions of racism, community narratives of an ageing white population feed on a ‘we was all one’ nostalgia that resonates with neither a younger BME population nor the affluent middle classes that have moved into the riverside developments. In Camberwell, on the other hand, multilayered manifestations of difference have evolved for much longer. Whereas there is no well-established resident core with a claim to the history and identity of the area, multiple fault lines emerge according to ethnic/racial, socioeconomic and generational markers. Turin

Turin is characterised by a close relationship between industrialisation and migration. The two neighbourhoods under analysis, Borgo San Paolo and Barriera di Milano, are situated a few kilometres apart and share a workingclass history and strong political mobilisation that created social cohesion and a strong local identity. Accordingly, ‘the factory’ (Fiat) was considered a key producer of bonding social capital, reinforcing class identities and the connection of working and living places, underpinned by political membership and battles led by the trade union (Busso et al, 2012, 14). Migration from southern Italy contributed significantly to a very rapid population growth of 41.7 per cent in the decade 1951–61, making Turin the third-biggest south Italian city – after Naples and Palermo. Not unlike responses to later migration flows, this had resulted in high demands on the housing stock and welfare services, as well as discrimination against new arrivals, for example advertisements explicitly stating ‘South Italians not welcome’ (Pinto and Ponzo, 2011, 5). The unfolding of post-industrial urban transformation has taken very different courses in the two neighbourhoods. Over the 1990s, Sao Paolo experienced a gradual conversion of the industrial areas into housing stock, 201

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

businesses and centres of culture and creativity with both city-wide and local appeal. While the same period also has seen a gradual increase in the immigrant population of the neighbourhood, the immigrant proportion of the total has stayed on a par with the Turin average, at 13.5 per cent in 2009 (Pinto and Ponzo, 2011, 33). Experiences of immigration and settlement are broadly seen as unproblematic, as observed in relation to a public garden in the area: Elderly persons are chiefly the morning users. Usually they gather sitting on the same benches to talk and make commentaries on the newspaper news. In the afternoon native and immigrant mothers with children occupy the playgrounds, meanwhile the elderly people keep using ‘their’ benches. Relationships are very cordial and mothers of different national origin mix and talk without paying attention to the various origins. A Romanian mother says: ‘we know each other since long time. We don’t pay attention to our origins, more so because our children play together without thinking where their parents come from’…In the evening the garden is attended almost exclusively by young people. The different ethnic groups occupy different areas. Each group maintains the same bench or table as a reference from which [it] rarely departs. So the groups rarely speak to each other. (Busso et al, 2012, 43–4) Accordingly, ethnicity, gender and generation are user categories coded on to the topography of the garden at particular times. Apart from afternoon mothers, different groups use the park without frictions, but also without crossing the boundaries they have put in place. Barriera di Milano remained stuck in the shadow of its industrial past, perceived by local residents as a peripheral area characterised by social fragmentation, and there is a strong sense of being at the wrong end of an unfair deal regarding resource allocation and political influence (Busso et al, 2012), as expressed by residents: ‘Barriera di Milano has always been abandoned, this is where they threw the dust. In the city center they put flower boxes paid off by the people of Barriera through municipal taxes.’ ‘The neighbourhood would not be as it is, if important persons, able to talk where the power is, lived here. If a lawyer, a doctor of an architect living in the centre starts complaining, the municipality for sure solves his problems.’ (Busso et al, 2012, 52)

202

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

The neighbourhood is also a significant arrival zone for immigrants from abroad, and the immigrant proportion of the population has over the past years consistently been twice the city level (in 2009, 28 per cent against 13.7 per cent). A consequence is a demographic shift locally characterised as a ‘substitution process’ where Italian families would move out and immigrants move in (Pinto and Ponzo, 2011, 17). In a similar vein, popular discourse identified a relationship between immigration and urban blight in the area with the economic decline seen as accelerating a process where ‘traditional’ small shops were replaced by immigrant-owned businesses (Pinto and Ponzo, 2011, 14). With immigrants attracted by low-cost housing in the neighbourhood, immigrant settlement was seen to, in turn, fuel the urban blight process. It is perhaps indicative of this uncertainty that it was in Barreira di Milano that Liga Nord, the anti-immigrant centre-right party, established its first office in the city, ‘with a clear aim of building on the perception of difficulties generated by rapid increases in [the] foreign population’ (Pinto and Ponzo, 2011, 19). Interestingly, local support for Liga Nord and other anti-immigrant parties is – in both Borgo San Paolo and Barriera di Milano – very much on a par with the rest of the city (Pinto and Ponzo, 2011). Accordingly, backlash narratives have not translated into widespread support for parties proposing anti-immigrant policies. Significant is the manner in which the urban context has conditioned highly differentiated response patterns from the erstwhile migrants from southern Italy. In Borgo San Paolo, the more well-to-do neighbourhood, ‘old’ migrants from southern Italy would look for commonalities, drawing analogies between their own migrant experience and that of more recently arrived international migrants. But the response in Barreira di Milano was much more apprehensive: ‘Fearing to lose the social status achieved with a lot of difficulties, [settled] southern immigrants tend to contrast their own positive integration experience with their totally negative perception of foreign immigrants’ (Busso et al, 2012, 61). Accordingly, the ‘we southeners’ rhetoric became part of a backlash narrative in the poorer, more fragmented Barreira di Milano neighbourhood, feeding into a wider resentment over the perceived marginalisation of the area. Barcelona

Both Sagrada Familia and Poble Sec are densely populated inner-city areas, with population densities clearly above the 2010 Barcelona average of about 16,000 inhabitants/km2. But they also present very different built-up areas. Located centrally in Barcelona, Sagrada Familia has got the appearance of a planned space, a grid of straight, wide streets criss203

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

crossing a neighbourhood largely made up of six-storey tenements. It is perceived as a dormitory middle-class area where high real estate prices slow down the arrival of younger families and also makes it a less attractive destination for immigrants (Moren-Alegret et al, 2012, 110). But it is also a transit area, with high volumes of car traffic, as well as high numbers of tourists aiming for the Temple Sagrada Familia, the most visited tourist destination in Barcelona. Poble Sec, on the other hand, appears, at least in caricature, the Gemeinschaft to Sagrada Familia’s Gesellschaft. A more organic urban space, the neighbourhood is characterised by an irregular pattern of narrow streets with very limited car traffic. Perceived as a working-class neighbourhood with lower real estate prices, recent years have seen a gentrification process, with an increasing influx of young middle-class residents who have contributed to a more mixed social environment. Its situation away from main transportation arteries is perceived by some as a bonus: ‘Another characteristic that I would say about the quarter is that it is not very permeable. I mean, luckily, not a lot of people come here. And I see that positively’ (Poble Sec resident, in Moren-Alegret et al, 2012, 11). Like the rest of the city, both neighbourhoods have been characterised by migration from different parts of rural Spain from the late ninteenth century onwards. But it is only recent decades that have seen an increase in international migration to Barcelona, with the foreign-born population in the city increasing from 3 per cent in 2000 to 17 per cent in 2012. Whereas the main foreign nationality population in 2010 were ‘invisible’ Italian immigrants, other main sending countries were Morocco, a variety of Latin American countries and Asian countries such as Pakistan and China. Not surprisingly, the nature of the housing stock in the two neighbourhoods has conditioned very different levels of uptake. So whereas the foreign-born proportion of the population in Sagrada Familia was on a par with the Barcelona average in 2012, the immigrant proportion of the population in Poble Sec stood at 29 per cent (Moren-Alegret et al, 2012). There was, overall, a correlation between the duration of immigrant settlement and the manner in which immigrants were perceived locally. Accordingly, Pakistani immigrants were referred to as ‘positive immigrants’ who do not ‘cause problems’ (Moren Alegret et al, 2012, 42). A Pakistani shopkeeper in Poble Sec, and a Barcelona resident since 1996, also touched on the positives of a slowly emerging familiarity: ‘A person who comes anew, with another skin colour, people treat you differently of course: “Ah, these newcomers, who knows what they are like”. This is normal. Later, as time goes by, and people visit your business, they start to get used to us, and now 204

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

they are already used to us.’ (Pakistani-born shopkeeper, aged 38, in Moren Alegret et al, 2012, 43) More recent immigrants were viewed differently, and typically only singled out with assumed national markers when associated with negative behaviour. Where Eastern European immigrants broadly were referred to as ‘people from the East’, the only Eastern European immigrant group singled out were Romanians who were described in strongly negative ways, typically associated with petty crime and homelessness (Moren Alegret et al, 2012, 23). Similarly visible, and also negatively marked, were groups of young Dominicans hanging out in the streets of Poble Sec. Whereas locals would see these groups as responsible for noise and rowdy behaviour during the evenings, other local stakeholders would link such street corner groupings to both traditions of social organisation and broader challenges around unemployment: ‘The typical Dominican, for example, gathers and shares the corner…The real problem is unemployment. They are standing around on the corners because they have nothing to do, you know. And in one way or another, they are trying to survive… We have this belief: at home, we don’t achieve anything. On the corner, it is easier to get a job than at home.’ (Member of Dominican immigrant association, aged 29, in Moren Alegret et al, 2012) The overall impact of increasing immigration is experienced very differently in the two neighbourhoods. The central position of Sagrada Familia in Barcelona’s tourist economy also implies a flow of people who are either visitors or otherwise involved in the economy without having a stake in the neighbourhood. In contrast, the cohesive and welcoming nature of Poble Sec was widely recognised as an asset (Moren Alegret et al, 2012, 15). But there were also different interpretations of how recent immigration had affected the area: ‘This is a neighbourhood where there is a lot of local life, warm social relations [‘caliu de barri’]. Everybody knows each other, residents, shopkeepers…There is a tight social feeling among its inhabitants. And, even with the recent arrival of many newcomers – foreigners and people from other parts of Barcelona – there is still a balance with the people who have been residing in Poble Sec all their lives.’ (Local resident, 28 years old)

205

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

‘It was a very united neighbourhood and with very good relationships…but precisely during these last ten years, when all these people from the outside have come, “the newcomers” we call them, this has disappeared. There is no warm coexistence.’ (Spokesman for resident’s association, 58 years old) Such different experiences can obviously be attributed to both individual experiences and generational differences, with the apprehension towards ‘newcomers’ reminiscent of the ageing Bermondsey population. Overall, however, the impact of post-industrialism, which served to distinguish between the neighbourhoods in both Turin and London, appears much less present in both Sagrada Familia and Poble Sec. Similarly, despite the very significant increase in immigrant numbers in recent years there are no clear-cut backlash-narratives, but rather issue-led apprehension with regard to certain groups of more recent arrivals. In summary

The six neighbourhoods represent post-industrial urban dynamics in ways that demonstrate considerable variation, both within and between cities. There was in Camberwell, Borgo San Paolo and the two Barcelona neighbourhoods a sense of evolving with the city – albeit in very different ways. As the neighbourhood most affected by long-term and continuous processes of arrival and settlement, conventional ideas of majority and minority populations had been done away with in Camberwell, resulting in a super-diverse neighbourhood without a dominant narrative of community. In both Borgo San Paolo and Poble Sec, international migration was a more recent experience, generally absorbed without triggering any significant backlash responses from the settled populations. Backlash narratives relating to processes of marginalisation and cultural imperialism were prevalent in both Bermondsey and Barreira di Milano where post-industrialism was associated with experiences of loss and stagnation, resulting in a strong sense of disadvantage relative to other parts of the city. Furthermore, in Bermondsey the re-development of former docklands into expensive housing units served as a poignant reminder of how the planks underpinning livelihoods in industrial Bermondsey now signpost a highly classed housing landscape. The remaining part of the chapter will now turn towards the NFs carried out in each of the neighbourhoods. The analysis will address the manner in which the NFs confirmed and supplemented fieldwork findings.

206

Superdiversity in the post-industrial city

Neighbourhood forums

Organised towards the end of the fieldwork period, the NFs provided an opportunity to both test research findings and explore the suitability of a participatory community engagement model as a platform for dialogue between local residents, service-providers and other local stakeholders. Rather than purely a research technique, the aim was to consider these events as participatory approaches, defined by Pain and Francis, in their review of participatory methodologies, as ‘methodologies and epistemologies that aim to effect change for and with research participants’ (Pain and Francis, 2003, 46). The effect of a participatory approach should, as Pain and Francis argue, go beyond the actual implementation stage: ‘The defining characteristic of participatory research is not so much the methods and techniques employed, but the degree of engagement of participants within and beyond the research encounter’ (Pain and Francis, 2003, 46). This emphasis is relevant in relation to the analysis of the events. Whereas the research partners had developed a shared format – in terms of length, structure and content – the central point of interest concerned the dynamics of participant engagement, more specifically the extent to which the events served to reproduce or challenge the boundaries and backlash narratives identified during the fieldwork. Based on a pre-defined format, most NFs were two-hour events consisting of two key components: A verification of research findings; a discussion of future directions for the neighbourhood. The latter was based on two questions that had previously been used for snapshot interviews at neighbourhood level. These were: ‘If you were the mayor of your neighbourhood, what would you change? And what would you not change at all?’ The intention was thus to generate a more open-ended discussion about the future of the local neighbourhood. Participants for the NFs were recruited in different ways. In most instances, those who had taken part in the research as interviewees and key informants were invited directly, as were local associations and local politicians. But the strategies used to recruit participants also differed between countries. The Barcelona team made extensive use of posters and flyers, and it was also given the opportunity to make use of the mailing list of the local library in order to maximise outreach. In London and Turin, the organisers relied more on existing contacts to research participants, as well as local stakeholders who had been approached during the fieldwork. Table 9.2 provides a very short overview of the events. It is evident that even though a pre-defined format was in place, the uptake was very different, even within cities. In both Barcelona and Turin, the most dynamic events were the ones taking place in the neighbourhoods with 207

Superdiversity, Policy and Governance in Europe

the highest levels of foreign-born populations, and it was also here that the interactive approach was received most positively. It should, however, also noted that some population groups are continuously absent. Most NFs had very limited participation by the under40s. As many local boundary processes and tensions do have a generational Table 9.2: Summaries of neighbourhood forums City

Neighbourhood

Characteristics of event

Barcelona

Poble Sec

The NF was staged in the local civic centre, with 40 participants, of whom eight were immigrants. The event managed to attract a younger segment of the population (15 participants