one of the first to emancipate from national borders and authorities and to go .... of these alien guests with in principle equal rights in the socio-economic sphere ...
Integration of Immigrants in Europe: policies of diversity and diversity of policies.
Contribution to the conference `Working Together for the Future: Partnerships in Immigration Research and Policy', Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 22-25, 2000.
by prof. dr. Rinus Penninx1 Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies University of Amsterdam European co-chair of Metropolis
Globalization and internationalization have become dominant features of the postwar era. This development is manifested in a number of areas. The financial world was one of the first to emancipate from national borders and authorities and to go worldwide. Fo llowing the free m oveme nt of capital, econom ic activities and products are now also much less restricted by national boundaries than they used to be. The development of technology in information, communication and transport has evidently contributed to this new economic and financial world order. And in its wake
it has assisted intern ationalization in cultura l and political matters. Th e coming in to existe nce o f the E urope an U nion is a man ifestatio n of the latter.
There is quite a debate on what exactly these developments, outlined here in a few lines, mean. What meaning to whom? To what organizations or institutions? On which levels: local, national or international? Today in this address I will focus on immigrants and po licies of European countries relating to integration of immigrants. From the distant other side of the Atlantic Ocea n Europe m ay be perceived as a unity, in terms of migrant and integration policies that unity may turn out to be patchwork
First I will look at a few special consequences of processes of globalization: What kind of migration movements are brought about by globalization? How have authorities on different levels reacted to immigration and immigrants?
In order to answer this latter question and compare integration policies and approa ches in E urope I p ropose - as a second step - to develop a simple analytical tool tha t is base d on th e con cept o f `citizen ship'.
That tool enables me in step three to typo logize th e con tent, o rienta tion an d poss ible partiality of integration policies and compare them within Europe - or within national conte xts.
2. Some consequences of globalisation: migration and migrant policies
Let m e turn to the first step and m ake so me o bserva tions o n two specific consequences of globalization. The first is that this globalization in all the domains mentioned abo ve has inevitably consequences for the m ovement of hum an beings. First of all, there is a substantial migration directly linked to globalization, for example of people working in multinational companies and with international institutions. In general one might say that the labour market of the highly skilled has become increasingly interna tional. This kind of migra tion - which often is temporary
- is generally not seen as problematic, although it contributes clearly to growing diversity .
These cosmopolitans, however, are not the only people who move. A second and far greater category of people moves as an indirect consequence of globalization: the increased reach of communication and transport, the higher density of networks globally and thus the increase of intermediary structures that facilitate migration, have significantly contributed to the growth of immigration of workers, refugees and asylum seekers and their family members. Until 1974 the arrival of workers was welcom ed and eve n stimulate d by recruitm ent, at least in the N orthweste rn European countries because of the demand for their labour. After the restructuring of European economy in the seventies and the introduction of restrictive immigration policies, however, they kept coming unasked for. It is particularly this category of newcom ers that is perceived as problem atic in the eyes of the societies of settleme nt. Also the countries at the southern part of the EU-area, like Portugal, Spain, Italy and Gree ce, tha t used to be s upplie rs of labo ur for th e Nor thern part, h ave inc reasin gly become destinations for un solicited migrants.
These migration movements - welcomed or grudgingly accepted - have changed drastically the receiving societies, and particularly the large cities in Western Europe that have been the factual attraction poles for immigrants. In Amsterdam for example, recent immigrants and their descendants form more than 42 % of the total population; in primary schools in Amsterdam more than half of the pupils are of non-D utch o rigin 2. Local governm ents in such cities ha ve to learn how to deal with the drastic changes in the composition of the population, with new cultural and religiou s divers ity, with new dem ands of rece nt arriv ed im migra nts an d their children. How to make the institutions of the existing society work equally and satisfactorily for these new comers a nd how to let them or m ake them participate actively in that society?
Such questions lead us to a second consequence of globalization that is relevant for us: who is responsible for policies in these matters? Globalization has brought about significant shifts in political structures and responsibilities. On the one hand
national govern ments h ave lost mu ch of their forme r autonom y and auth ority to external forces. Their influence on financial markets, on economic processes and especially on development in employment opportunities clearly diminished. The gradual emergence of larger political units, such as the European Union, further restrict autonomous policies of states. On the other han d large cities have to devise and implement policies that are geared to the new composition of their population and the n ew circum stances, and thus they co nfront these sa me na tional states with claims to decentralize policies to lower levels. The new distribution of tasks and responsibilities between these layers of government are increasingly com plex and give rise to te nsion s. In ou r field for e xam ple, m igration and a dmis sion po licies are main ly national and European Union policies, but the concrete consequences have to be dealt with by local governments, particularly large cities that are attraction poles of imm igrants (see: D oom ernik e t al. 199 7).
International migration and the strong presen ce of immigrant new comers have evoked new policies from local, national and EU-authorities. What about the nature, orientation and reach of such policies? Is there convergence in the way various national governments and metropolitan cities approach such questions?
3. Citizenship and a typology of policies
I now come to the second step that I promised: in order to compare integration policies in Europe, w e need to d evelop a tool for such comparison . I propose to start from a sim ple an alytic al fram ewo rk th at ce nter s aro und the c once pt of `c itizen ship'. Recently political theorists have contributed significantly to our thinking on citizens hip, pa rticular ly whe n the y have tried to a nswe r the q uestio n how basic democra tic values can an d should be c ombined with cultural an d religious diversity on the one han d and socio-economic equ ality on the other (Baub`ck 1994; Baub`ck et al. 1996; Brubaker 1989 and 1992; Hammar 1990; Kymlicka 1995; Soysal 1994; Youn g 1990 ).
I propose to bring in the most important elements of these discussions in a rather practic al way : let us d istingu ish thre e differe nt asp ects or dime nsion s of citize nship .
The first is the juridical/political dimension: it refers to the basic question whether imm igrants ar e regard ed as fullfledg ed me mber of the po litical comm unity. In practice the question is in how far immigrants and ethnic minorities do have formal rights and duties that differ from those of natives in relation to opportunities for political participation. This also includes the question whether newcomers may (easily or not) acquire national citizenship and thus gain access to the formal political system; it evidently also includes the granting (or not) of political rights to nonnationals and the juridical status as aliens as far as this has consequences for political p articipa tion.
The second is the socio-economic dimension of citizenship: this pertains to social and economic rights of residents, irrespective of national citizenship; these include indus trial righ ts and rights re lated to institut ionalize d facilities in the s ocio-ec onom ic sphere. Do they have (equal) rights to accept work and to use institutional facilities to find it? Do they have the sam e rights as indigenous workers? Do the y have access to work related benefits, like unemployment benefits and insurance, and to the stateprovided social secu rity facilities, like social housing, social assistance and welfare and care facilities, et cetera.
The third dimension pertains to the domain of cultural and religious rights of immigrants and m inorities: do they have equal rights to organize and man ifest themselves as ethnic or religious groups? Are they recognized, accepted and treated like other comparable groups and do they enjoy the same or comparable facilities?
These dimensions of citizenship can be reformulated for the purpose of analysis of policies of national and local governments as `spheres of integration' and used as yards ticks to t ypolog ize the kind a nd pa rtiality of in tegrat ion po licies.
4. Diversity of policies in Europe
If we attribute for the sake of simplicity only two qualities to each of the dimensions defined above, one positive quality meaning the explicit support in policy for the
dimension concerned, and one negative meaning that that same dimension is denied support in policies, we have created a typology space of possible forms of policies:
Typology space of migrant/ethn ic minorities policies: _________________________________________________________________________
dimension Socio-e conom ic dimension Cultural-religious dimension _________________________________________________________________________
From this simple typology a num ber of things become clear. The first and most impo rtant d ivide be twee n policie s is base d on th e juridic al-politica l dime nsion : if migrants or immigrants are not regarded as (potentially) part of the political community of the country or city of settlement and if the juridical position is defined as ess entially differen t, I will call th ese ex clusion ist policie s.
On this point w e observe significant h istorical differences betwe en Northw estEuropean countries: a number of countries have started so called `guest worker policies' after the Second World War. By definition such migration was temporary, and thus exclusionist: types 4, 5 and 6. Dutch policies until 1980, for example, fitted perfectly type 4, since it combined political exclusion and a special juridical position of these alien guests with in principle equal rights in the socio-economic sphere and a policy of `retaining cultural and religious identity' in view of their anticipated return. Austrian and Swiss policies have fitted, and still do to a great extent, to types 5 or 6 in the sense that they combined political exclusion with unequal industrial and social rights of foreign workers.
In the beginning of the 1980s, howe ver, a number of these E uropean countries, such as The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Sweden 3, have explicitly acknowledged that most of the (former) labour m igrants wou ld be settling for good an d that m ore inclusionist policies were necessary (Vermeulen 1997). These countries have changed their naturalization laws and/or practices in order to facilitate access to formal citizenship, most prominently for the children of immigrants. Som etimes they have added opportunities for formal political participation of legally residing aliens at the local leve l or hav e devis ed gro up-sp ecific form s of con sultatio n and particip ation.
Not all European countries, however, have made such a change in definitions and policies, or at least not to the same extent. Austrian and Swiss national policies, for example, still reflect to a large extent the premises of guestworker policies. Germany made a first step towards a more inclusionist policy in 1991 with a relative easing of the to ugh n atura lization regula tions.
Against this background of continental Europe, the UK represents a different case: there is no such tradition as a `guest worker schem e' and the great majority of those who immigrated to the UK was entitled to or possessed already a British passport on their arrival. Alienness and nationality are not significant characteristics: it was and is the racial or ethnic origin or descent that is the relevant paradigm. The British case, being one that is inclusionist in the formal sense from the beginning, makes us aware of the distinction between formal inclusion and inclusion in practice. Inclusion in the political-juridical domain turns out to be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to attain equality.
Although there is thus some convergence in national migrant policies in Europe perta ining to the ju ridical/p olitical dim ension , quite s ubsta ntial diffe rence s rem ain 4. Such differences are related to basic ideas about membership of the political community in different countries: Germany, for example, defines its national comm unity in ethnic term s, in terms of an cestry, and thu s welcom e resettlers (Aussiedler) as Germans returning to the fatherland, but regard settled foreigners as Ausla nder, a s `alien e leme nts'. Th e Fren ch rep ublican conce ption, in contradistinction, is based on a political contract between individual citizens and the
state, a contract that anyone who subscribes the principles of that political system may enter into. Th e fact th at suc h princ iples in th e Fren ch cas e are s trong ly embedded in culturally defined institutions, however, makes things complicated for those imm igrants that ha ve different cultural an d religious backgrou nds. Also here the political-juridical inclusion seems to be a necessary, but not necessarily a sufficient condition.
And of cours e a different term inology goes with s uch different con ceptions: mo re exclusionist policies talk about `aliens', `Auslander', `guest workers' and other design ations that a ccent uate the (su ppose d) tem poral st ay or th e belon ging of a person to another political unity. Terminology and content of such po licies reflect basically the non-acceptance of immigration as a phenomenon and newcomers as permanent immigrants. In inclusionist policies on the contrary, `immigrant' is an accepted term like in France, or the term ethnic minorities is adopted as in the case of the UK and the N etherlands, the term reflecting on the one h and the fact th at a group (of immigrants) is part of the political community, but has on the other hand a vulne rable p lace in t hat co mm unity.
Let us now turn to the second and third dimension and look particularly at inclusionist policies5. The firs t rem ark is th at type 3 does not ex ist in the ory in Western Europe at this moment: liberal democracies principally do not allow for inequality and unequal rights for those who are regarded as members of the political community. Type 3 may, however, exist in practice, as far as racism and discrimination is given space to overthrow such high principles.
In term s of official p olicies, h owev er, we find the secon d imp ortan t divide w ithin inclusionist policies in Europe: between type 1 that stands for multiculturalist policies on the one hand and type 2, that pertains to those forms of `integration' policies t hat a re m ainly ba sed on assim ilationist p rem ises.
Mult icultur al policie s of type 1 pres uppo se not only po litical inclu sion an d equ ality in the so cio-eco nom ic dom ain, bu t also a im at cultur al and religiou s equ ity. The basic premise of multiculturalism, defined as a set of normative notions on how to shape a
multicultural society politically, is that immigrants cannot become equal citizens unless state a nd society accep t that both individua ls and groups h ave the right to cultural difference. The prevailing institutions and rules in society are historical and cultur al prod ucts th at are not ne utral fo r new com ers an d thu s ma y nee d revisio n in order to acco mm odate new com ers, acc ording to the mu lticultur al vision .
Integration policies of type 2, in contradistinction, take the state and society of settlemen t as `given', also in the cultura l and norm ative sense. Ne wcom ers are supposed to adapt at least to the public institutions of th at society. This m ay lead to strong assimilation pressure.
The definitions of the different types of policy described above are ideal types. As I said earlier, I have given only two extreme qualities on each dimension: positive or negative. In practice the divides between them are much fuzzier. The Institute of Migration and Ethnic Stud ies of the University of Amsterdam did com parative studies of practical policies and the instrum ents used for th ese policies in Wes tEuropean countries (Lindo 1998; Rath et al. 1996; Vermeulen 1997). I summarize here some of the con clusions:
In general since the 1960s, countries have been putting less emphasis on cultural homogeneity, partly due to their increasingly heterogeneous popu lations . This tre nd ha s ma nifeste d itself in im migra nt policy as a sh ift from assimilation to integration B to a policy of more tolerance and respect for cultural differences. In som e countries this ge neral trend too k specific forms expressed in policies that used the term m ulticulturalism: British, Swedish and Dutch policy docum ents for example. The conten t of such policies, however, differed markedly. In general those kinds of differences were ea siest accepted as a basis for `multiculturalism' that existed already as accepted and anchored forms of difference in the past: religious differences in the Neth erland s, for ex amp le, and langu age diffe rence in Sw eden .
Since the early 1990s, more critical attitudes have arisen towards multiculturalist ideas in most countries where forms of m ulticulturalist policies were practised. Especially those forms of policies that combined multicultural premises with a clear cut specification of target groups of such policies, like in the Dutch case. The criteria for selecting such target groups were actually ambivalent: based on socio-economic criteria of disadvantaged groups on the one hand and on being culturally or religiously distinct from mainstream society on the other hand. Diversity policies are nowadays often promoted as a way out of that ambiguity: they reformulate policies for the socially disadvantaged individually, and promote the acceptance of diversity as a stren gth w ithou t pinnin g it dow n to pa rticular socio-e conom ic or cult urally defined target groups.
Taking back a gain the distinction be tween the three dom ains, we hav e to conclu de tha t the e xtent of conv ergen ce tha t has o ccurre d is not equa lly strong in each of these domains. There has been some convergence in the political-ju ridical do main : for exa mple , in all m emb er stat es, EU rules w ill apply to large groups of `third-country nationals'. Also the wide disparities between French and German immigration legislation have narrowed somew hat. In recent ye ars there ha ve been incre asing appea ls in Germa ny to enable children of immigrants to gain citizenship more easily. The jus san guin is principle is thus being relaxed and the jus soli principle is being considered, while in France the opposite is happening. The c leares t press ure for conve rgenc e, how ever, is in the so cio-eco nom ic domain. U niform rules of th e EU from above assisted b y trade union pressure within national contexts have contributed to much more uniformity than before. The largest disparities still exist in the cultural-religious domain. Policies related to the two most important elements in this domain, those of language and religion, show little evidence of converge nce. Awa reness of the n eed to have such policies v aries sig nificant ly and p ressu re of E urope an ins titution s is not strong here. One of the basic problems here is that language and religion are often tightly bou nd up w ith notions of nationa l identity. More divers policies are then easily perceived as threatening that national identity.
Neve rthele ss som e signs of conv ergen ce can be see n, often at the local leve l, for example in the recognition of muslims as negotiating partners and rudimentary institutionalization of so called `new' religions. But at the same time there are still wide disparities with rega rd to religious instruction in sta te schools and opportunities for religiously based schools.
By way of concluding I would like to make two remarks. The first pertains to the importance of local policies, particularly in large cities. I have indicated earlier that within national contexts significant differences in local policies may exist. I also have stressed that particularly in large cities being the focus points of globalization, the need is felt to find adeq uate answ ers to new circumstan ces. These large cities are confronted with similar kinds of problems. In effect the reduced influence of national authorities may in a number of aspects contribute to the process of convergence of policies in the near future.
The second remark pertains to the other side of the medal: if there are so many dispar ities in a pproa ches w ithin E urope , and if th ese dis parities relate to bas ic differences in conce ptions of the respe ctive political comm unities, and if furtherm ore solutions for change have to be grounded in potentialities for more diversity that exist a lready in socie ty or citie s of sett leme nt, if the se thre e state men ts are c orrect , is rapid convergence then still a goal to strive for? I would argue that citizens, politicians and policy m akers shou ld indeed be ea ger to find new solutions for mo re thorough political participation, for a better implementation of equality and for acceptance of and positive use of the increased diversity. But they should do this at the sam e time by gu arding the con tinuity and stability that e very society nee ds to survive. Amsterdam, 15-3-2000 Rinus Penninx
References Bau bock, R ., Transnational Citizenship. Membership and Rights in International Migration. Avebury, Aldershot 1994. Bau bock , R., A . Helle r and A.R Z olber g (eds ), The Challenge of Diversity. Integration and Pluralism in Societies of Immigration. Avebury, Aldershot 1996. Brub aker, R .W. (ed .), Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America. University Press of America, Lanham 1989. Brub aker, R .W., Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1992. Doom ernik, J., R. Penn inx and H . van Am ersfoort, A Migration Policy for the Future; Possibilities and Limitations, Migration Policy Group, Brussels 1997. Hammar, T. Democracy and the Nation State. Aliens, Denizens and Citizens in an World of International Migration. Avebury, Aldershot 1990. Kym licka, W ., Multicultural Citizenship: a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1995. Lindo , F., De positionering van het Nederlandse minderhedenbeleid in vergelijkend perspectief. Overzichtnotitie Integratiebeleid 1998. Background study to the advisory report `Integ ratie in perspectief. Advies o ver integratie van bijzondere groepen en van personen uit etnische groeperingen in het bijzonder'. The Hague:RMO/Sdu Publishers 1998. Lucassen, J. en R. Penninx, Newcomers, Immigrants and their Descendants in the Netherlands 1550-1995, Het Spinhuis, Amsterdam 1997. Mar shall. T.H ., Citizenship and social Class and other Essays. Cambridge Un iversity Press, Cambridge 1950. Rath , J., R. Pe nninx , K. Gr oene ndijk en A. Me yer, `The politics of recognizing religious diversity in Europe. Social reactions to the institu tiona lizatio n of Is lam in the Neth erlan ds, B elgiu m a nd G reat Brita in'. In: The Netherlands' Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 35 (1999), 1, 53-68. Rath , J., R. Pe nninx , K. Gr oene ndijk en A. Me yer, Nederland en zijn Islam; een ontzuilende Samenleving reageert op het ontstaan van een Geloofsgemeenschap , Het Spinhuis (MES-reeks nr. 5), Amsterdam 1996. (English translation forthcoming: Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis 2000) Soysa l, Y.N., Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago University Press, Chicago 1994. Verm eulen . H. (ed.), Immigrant Policy for a multicultural Society. A conparative Study of Integration, Language and religious Policy in five Western European Countries. Brus sels/A mste rdam : MPG /IME S, 1997 .
Young, I.M. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ 1990.
. International Metropolis is global network of research, governmen tal and NGO-partners that acts as a forum for discussion on w ays of improving policies and programm es for effectiv ely m agagin g the im pact of imm igration and d iversity in larg e cities. R inus P ennin x is the European co-chair of Metropolis. He is also one of the co-ordinators of a UNESCOsponsored international research programme called `Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in European Cities (MPMC)'. This contribution draws and builds on work done in these contexts. Penninx is also director of the Research Programme of the IMES at the Univ ersiteit v an Am sterda m. Fo r furth er infor matio n con sult th e web site of M etropo lis (http://www.interna tional.metropolis.net), UNESCO (http:\\w ww.unesco opzoeken) and IME S ((http ://w ww. pscw .uva.n l/ime s/). 2
. In both cases `non-Dutch' or `allochthonous' is defined as those `born abroad, plus those havin g at lea st one paren t born abroa d'. Rem ark th at the definitio n is ph rased nega tively and includes all children of immigrants. 3
. Sweden w as in fact the first country to change its policies already in the 1970s.
. Policies of cities are to a great extent dependent on positions that have been taken and policies t hat h ave be en ad opted a t the n ationa l level. N everth eless, loc al policie s with in national contexts may vary significantly: cities may on the one h and circumvent or compensate restrictions of national policies, for example by creating special structures for political participation such as Advisory Cou ncils; on the other hand cities may neglect or refuse to implement inclusionist national policies in other cases. 5
. Variations in the right part of the scheme reflect differences in soft and harde r kinds of `temporary migration': the typ es of column 5 and 6 re presents policies tha t contest essential notion s of equality and equal rights in liberal democra cies in relation to these migrants, such as equal wages, prov isions, right to be nefits.