Integration Policies in Federal Settings. Transferring the Citizenship Approach to Switzerland’s Cantonal Level1 Anita Manatschal Institute of Political Science, University of Bern
[email protected]
Abstract Subnational variations of immigrant integration policies, particularly salient in federal states, are largely neglected by studies on migration and citizenship. Considering the fact that a majority of post-war immigration countries reveal a federal structure, this disregard is astonishing. Looking at the Swiss case, the heterogeneous puzzle of subnational integration policies challenges the formulation of a coherent national strategy in the field. From a societal perspective, it implies an unequal treatment of immigrants of the same status living in different cantons. Purpose of this paper is to capture this subnational variety using the example of the Swiss cantons. In line with international approaches, integration policies are conceptualized and measured in terms of immigrants ease or difficulty of access to citizenship rights and obligations covering civic, political, cultural, socio-structural and religious aspects. The cantonal data reveal a clear linguistic divide, an institutional “Röschtigraben”, with German speaking cantons exhibiting more restrictive integration policies than Latin cantons.
Introduction When it comes to policies regulating immigrant integration, Swiss cantons can be considered the main competent political units. The newly introduced function of a “cantonal integration delegate” by the new law for foreigners2 underlines and further fosters the role of the cantons in the respective field. Result of this considerable cantonal autonomy is a heterogeneous puzzle, a “Mini-Europe” (Cattacin 1996:69) of subnational integration policies. Examples of this cantonal variety can be indicated for different areas of integration: While immigrants enjoy in some cantons, and to varying degrees, the right to vote, other cantons forego such political participation rights. Certain cantons allow Islamic burials on their territories, while
1
Paper presented at the annual conference of the “Schweizerische Vereinigung für Politikwissenschaft” in Geneva, 7-8 of January 2010. 2 “Neues Ausländergesetz” AuG, effective since January 2008. See art.57, par.3.
1
others do not. Regarding the aspect of naturalization, often considered an advanced stage of integration3, cantonal legal prescriptions still vary considerably. From a scientific perspective, subnational variations of integration policies, which are particularly salient in federal states, are largely neglected. Respective studies focus commonly on national integration policies or regimes, which constitutes a rough simplification of subnational variety. Keeping in mind that a majority of post-war immigration countries are federal states exhibiting considerable subnational variations in the field of integration policies, this disregard is astonishing (Akgün/Tränhart 2001:1; Henkes 2008:114). From a political perspective, it is mainly the complexity of this fragmented clutter of regulations which induces political debates. The ongoing contestation on the necessity of a national integration law as well as single statements of politicians claiming that 26 regulations are too many, indicate a certain need for national harmonization (cf. Cattacin 1996:73; Lavenex 2006:669; Niederberger 2004:152).4 Considering the consequences this subnational policy variety yields on the target population, it implies very often an unequal treatment of immigrants endowed with the same status, but who live in different geographic areas. Thereby, subnational variations of integration policies constitute a source of structural discrimination (TAK 2005:11). Accordingly, purpose of this paper is to address this research gap and to capture subnational variations of integration policies in order to make them visible. In line with international approaches, the theoretical conceptualization of integration policy used in this paper is based on the idea of migrant‟s access to citizenship. The respective understanding of citizenship is a broad one including civic, political, socio-structural, cultural and religious rights and obligations. For the measurement of cantonal integration policies, an internationally established instrument was transferred to the subnational level. Conceptual shortcomings of this instrument have been modified in order to foster its theoretical coherence.
3
Yet, there are diverging opinions on whether naturalization should be regarded as beginning, part of the process or last step of integration (TAK 2005:62; TAK 2009a:45). 4 The claim for a national legal framework on integration goes back to the “Motion Schiesser” (FDP) from 2006. The respective motion triggered a tripartite process on the “further development of Swiss integration policy” lead by the tripartite agglomeration conference, TAK and accomplished in June 2009 (see TAK 2009a;b). See also article in the NZZ „Brainstorming zur Integrationspolitik. Koordinationseffort zwischen Bund, Kantonen und Gemeinden“ from January 21, 2009, p.15
2
Integration as „equality of opportunity“ Integration is a broad and complex concept. At the same time it is very abstract why it is difficult to capture. A look at public discussions about “right” or “wrong” integration shows that the expression often experiences a normative charge in the political debate (cf. Bauböck 2006:11; D‟Amato/Gerber 2005:13; Favell 2001a:118; IMISCOE 2008:4), which further complicates a unified definition of the term and its respective polices. Yet, any scientific empirical analysis of integration policies asks for a neutral and comprehensive but conceptually clearly delimited understanding of these policies. In the following, two central aspects of integration will be outlined, which will have to be considered when conceptualizing or measuring integration policies. The first aspect is related to the meaning of the term integration: What does “to integrate” mean? Depending on the perspective, possible answers might be “facilitated incorporation into the host society”, “equality of rights between immigrants and nationals” or “request for adaptation” (Mahnig 2001:128). The respective understandings vary from a demanding to a supportive attitude regarding the process of integration. This range of attitudes is captured by Switzerland‟s official position according to which integration policy should encourage but also actively require integration.5 In line with these varying perspectives, cultural adaptation, commonly referred to as “assimilation”, or the enhancement of multicultural variety might both be possible objectives of integration policies. The second aspect refers to the context of integration: Where should immigrants be integrated in? According to its manifold facets, integration into a host society might embrace several societal aspects such as civic, political, socio-structural, cultural or religious areas. Similarly, the political discourse on integration policy in Switzerland distinguishes between structural (school, work), political, social and cultural aspects of integration (BfM 2006:9; Cattacin/Kaya 2005:293; Prodolliet 2006:88; TAK 2009a). A glance at the legal understanding of integration policy reveals that the Swiss federation continues to apply a very open definition of integration with scarce concrete implications. 6 Yet, the objective of Swiss integration policy is clearly formulated and it considers both 5
The catchy German slogan reads: “Integrationspolitik heisst fördern und fordern” (e.g. Piñeiro 2009; Prodolliet 2006; TAK 2009b:1). Furthermore, this idea expresses that integration should be a mutual process which involves the foreign as well as the native population (art. 4 AUG; TAK 2009a:3) 6 The most important legal bases for Swiss integration policy are the new law for foreigners (AUG) from 2008 and the integration act (VIntA) from 2000.
3
aspects delineated above: The normative target of Swiss integration policy aims for equality of opportunities between the foreign and native population in all areas considered relevant for the process of integration, such as structural, social and cultural aspects of societal life (art. 2, par. 1 VIntA; art. 4, par. 2 AUG).7
Integration policies in federal settings A glance at the subnational policy level reveals that the realization of the above mentioned purpose, the establishment of equality of opportunities, varies considerably among the cantons. Subnational variations of integration policies are no Swiss specialty but a quite common characteristic of federal states. Similar variations can be observed in the US, Canada, Austria or Germany8, and they are particularly pronounced in strongly federal organized Switzerland (Akgün/Tränhardt 2001:19). In their analysis of integration policies in federal states, Akgün and Tränhart (2001) point to a specific pattern of immigration and integration policies, both subfields of the broader “migration policies” (Giugni/Passy 2006:1; Lavenex 2004:201). According to the authors, the two policy fields can often be attributed to different federal state levels: While immigration policy commonly falls into the domain of the national level, immigrant or integration policy is mainly formulated at the subnational level (Akgün/Tränhardt 2001:19). The logic behind this sharing of competences might become clearer considering the respective meanings of these policy fields in a complementary manner, as proposed by Schmitter Heisler:
„[Immigration policy] refers to policies that control the flow and composition of immigrants admitted, whereas [immigrant policy] refers to rights and privileges, obligations and responsibilites of those admitted (…). In short, immigration policy centers on gate keeping, while immigrant policy centers on incorporation” (Schmitter Heisler 2001:153).
7
This listing implicitly clarifies the emphasis of the federation on structural and social integration. A similar focus is reported in a recent TAK-document on the further development of Swiss integration policy (“Weiterentwicklung der schweizerischen Integrationspolitik” 2009b:34). Less importance is currently attached to the aspect of political integration or the question of cultural pluralism. 8 For an interesting study on federal variations of integration policy at Germany's subnational „Länder“ level see Henkes (2008).
4
“Gate keeping” refers to boarders, in this case national borders, why this function resides with the national level. The question of “incorporation” into a host society on the other hand is directly linked to the immediate surroundings immigrants live in. Therefore, it is reasonable that integration policies, or immigrant policies as they are called by Schmitter Heisler, are the domain of the local and regional level. When it comes to integration policies, Swiss cantons are the main competent and responsible political units, resulting in a “heterogeneous puzzle” of cantonal integration policies (Cattacin 1996:73; Cattacin/Kaya 2005:289; D‟Amato/Gerber 2005:11; Efionayi-Mäder 2006:45f; Ireland 1994:202; Lavenex 2006:669; Soysal 1994:71). This cantonal variation at the institutional level implies an unequal treatment of immigrants who share the same status but who live in different cantons. By doing so, it involves a potential source of structural discrimination of immigrants in general (TAK 2005:11), and specific subgroups in particular. Structural discrimination bases on institutionalized forms of unequal treatment of certain groups, be they formal, such as potentially discriminating laws or prescriptions, or informal, such as discriminating institutionalized practices for example in the area of employment (EKR 2009:6). Furthermore, discrimination may be direct, addressing certain groups explicitly, such as religious minorities, or indirect, by yielding discriminatory effects due to structural differences of certain groups, such as women (Ballmer-Cao 2006:848). Accordingly, the following investigation of cantonal variances of integration policies will consider potentially discriminating effects they may cause. Conceptualization of integration policy as access to comprehensive citizenship rights Apart from a normative and target-oriented understanding of integration as „equality of opportunity in the most important areas of integration” the federal council as well as the Swiss parliament refrain from further legal specifications of the term and its measurability (BFM 2006:8). From a scientific perspective, comparative international studies dealing with immigration and integration policies often refer to the concept of citizenship (e.g. Brubaker 1992; Favell 2001b:362f; Tilly 1995:8, Koopmans 2003a; 2005; 2008). Citizenship can broadly be defined as an interaction of rights and obligations toward any given state, creating thereby an area of legal equality between former and new citizens (Brubaker 1992:21; Kleger/D‟Amato 1995:260; Koopmans/Kriesi 1997:297; Tilly 1995:8). This conception of citizenship contains the aspect of equality of opportunities and, considering the interplay of rights and obligations, it comes also close to Schmitter Heisler‟s understanding of integration policies outlined above. Furthermore, the concept of citizenship implies the feature of in- and 5
exclusion respectively: It appears as something exclusive from the outside, while it is inclusive from the inside (Kleger/D‟Amato 1995:260; Eggert/Murigande 2004:127; Giugny/Passy 1997:13).9 Assuming that integration policies can be more or less in- or exclusive respectively, subnational variations of integration policies can therefore be captured in terms of varying degrees of ease or difficulty of access for immigrants to subnational citizenship rights and obligations. Earlier studies often applied a formal, one-dimensional perspective of citizenship along the axis between jus-soli and jus-sanguinis (Brubaker 1992). Many Germanic countries such as Switzerland or until recently also Germany belong to the jus-sanguinis group, where citizenship is traditionally transmitted by inheritance (the “blood”). In the respective countries the access of immigrants to nationality is more difficult than in jus-soli countries such as France, where nationality is bound to the soil a person is born. Considering more recent debates on multiculturalism and the rising importance attached to cultural rights (see for example Kymlicka 1999), such one-dimensional approaches have occasionally been criticized for being to reductive. According to Wicker (2003:30), economic, educative and social capitals would give a more adequate definition of the position of migrants in the country of residence than their mere civic status. Therefore, any application of the citizenship conception to the topic of immigrant integration should embrace all societal aspects relevant in this context. This claim goes in line with T.H. Marshalls (1950) classical and influential formulation of citizenship, who postulated a progression from civic to political to social citizenship. Accordingly, besides the narrow civic aspect refering to the process of naturalization such an understanding might cover political, social, economic, cultural or religious aspects. Several analysts base their typologies or integration regimes on such complex or broad understandings of citizenship.10 For illustrative purpose, these different aspects are sometimes conceptualized as dimensions resulting in different types of integration regimes, such as proposed by Koopmans et al. (2000; 2003; 2005; 2008). The respective dimensions in Koopmans are called formal-legal and cultural dimensions. While the formal-legal dimension refers to Brubaker‟s distinction covering the aspect of individual legal equality of immigrants, the cultural dimension captures cultural rights attributed to immigrants as a group, as well as
9
Similarly, Helbling (2008:24;28;45), based on Weber‟s (1978) idea of “open and closed social relationships”, uses the expression of citizenship as a “closure mechanism”. 10 See for example Castles/Davidson 2000; Entzinger 2000; Henkes 2009; Tilly 1995; Koopmans/Kriesi 1997; Koopmans 2003a; 2005; 2008; Rinus Penninx 2006.
6
cultural obligations the state expects immigrants to meet in order to obtain full citizenship rights (Koopmans et al. 2005:8ff; 2008:6). Figure 1 shows the resulting four ideal types of integration regimes based on the two dimensional citizenship map. Koopmans calls them assimilationist, segregationist, universalist and multicultural. By asking a high degree of cultural assimilation with only scarce concessions to cultural pluralism and by hampering the access to nationality through a jus sanguinis tradition, the assimilationist model can be read as the most exclusive or restrictive type. Along with Germanic countries, Switzerland is considered strongly assimilationist (Koopmans/Kriesi 1997:299; Koopmans et al. 2005:73; Kleger/D‟Amato 1995:266). The multicultural model can be read as the counterpart of the assimilationist model. It is prevalent in Anglo-Saxon and former settler states and stands for the most inclusive and least restrictive type. In multicultural integration regimes immigrants enjoy considerable cultural or religious rights and the access to the nationality of the host country is comparatively easier.
Figure 1 – Two dimensional conception of citizenship
cultural dimension cultural monism ↔ cultural pluralism
formal- legal dimension
civicterritorial (jus soli) ↕
Universalism F, old “melting pot” approach in the US
Multiculturalism GB, SWE, NL, USA, CAN, AU
ethnic (jus sanguinis)
Assimilationism D, CH, AT, ISR
Segregationism former “guest worker” approaches such as in CH or D
Sources: Own illustration, based on Koopmans (cf. Koopmans/Kriesi 1997:298; Koopmans/Statham 2000; Koopmans 2003b:208ff; Koopmans 2005:10).
As the name implies, citizenship and the access to it is typically defined at the national level. Many debates evolved around the question of the current relevance of the state and national conceptions of citizenship in the era of globalization. Looking at the considerable change of the nature of modern states due to post-war immigration, some analysts see national 7
sovereignty undermined and claim for new approaches such as post- or transnational conceptions of citizenship (Sassen 1998, Soysal 1994, Castles/Davidson 2000). Brubaker (1992) and his followers (Favell 1998, Joppke 1998, Koopmans et al 2005) on the other hand, consider citizenship still as the relevant category regarding the sovereignty of nation states and stress the crucial impact of national citizenship on migration policies. Joppke (1998:3) even considers the „renationalization‟ of immigration policies as an antidote of the „denationalizing‟ logic of globalization. Interestingly, these debates largely neglect the subnational level, the logical counterpart to the supranational perspective, and the respective internal dynamics and external influences operating at this stage. Among the few studies applying the citizenship approach to the subnational Swiss level are Helblings (2008) analysis of local citizenship conceptions or Eggert and Murigande‟s (2004) application of the citizenship approach to the cantonal level. Henkes (2008) finally offers a subnational study of integration policies in the German “Länder”. In a similar vein, the citizenship approach will be transferred to the cantonal level and in order to capture subnational variations of integration policies. Besides the cantonal heterogeneity and their broad competences in the field of integration policies such an application is fostered by the autonomous structure of the cantons exhibiting many features of single states.11 Measuring integration policies at the cantonal level Based on the formal-legal and the cultural dimension Koopmans derived several components measured by a variety of indicators covering crucial aspects of integration. The resulting complex measurement, an internationally established instrument for measuring integration policies, is considered a proper starting point for a measurement at the subnational level. The respective indices representing the two theoretical dimensions are called Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX12) for the formal-legal and Cultural Rights Index (CRI) for the cultural dimension. Table 1 offers an overview on the components of the MIPEX and the CRI.
11
Such as an institutionalized separation of powers, own constitutions or territories (Vatter 2006:204). A periodical edition of the MIPEX, covering 25 EU states plus Switzerland, Canada and Norway, is provided by the British Council and the Migration Policy Group (first edition 2001; second edition 2006/07). For more information see http://www.integrationindex.eu [last consultation 4.12.09]. 12
8
Table 1 – Measuring Integration Policy along the formal (MIPEX) and cultural (CRI) dimensions of citizenship Index Components MIPEX formal-legal dimension
CRI cultural dimension
labor market access * family reunion * long term residence political participation * access to nationality * anti discrimination * cultural requirements for naturalization * religious rights outside public institutions * cultural rights in public institutions political representation rights (for specific cultural groups) group specific affirmative action (labor market)
Note: * = Components exhibiting sufficient variation at the cantonal level and accordingly included in the measurement of cantonal integration policies. Most of the components in the cultural dimension are not applicable at the cantonal level. However, this dimension has been amended by an additional component measuring the “tendency for legal recognition of minorities’ religions” in the cantons.
The components of the two dimensions reveal a broad understanding, embracing structural, civic, political, cultural and religious aspects of citizenship. In order to measure cantonal integration policies, the components have been transferred to the cantonal level. A detailed composition of this transfer as well as operationalization and data sources for all the components can be found in table 3 in the appendix. The asterisks behind the components show that there are many equivalents to measure the formal-legal dimension of citizenship at the cantonal level, while there are only few counterparts for the cultural dimension. This is not surprising, considering Switzerland‟s assimilationist tradition with scarce concessions to cultural pluralism. In the following, the transfer of the single components to the subnational level will be discussed. Although it is only weakly developed in the Swiss case, the cultural dimension can be amended by an additional legal component: The tendency for legal recognition of minorities’ religions, which may be considered of particular interest for Switzerland's growing Muslim community (Christmann 2009:4, Cattacin et al. 2003). Since Islam is considered to be Switzerland‟s second biggest religion after the Christian confessions (Hunter 2002; Mahnig 2000a:102), and similarly to Koopmans (2003; 2005)13, the component religious rights outside public institutions will be defined in terms of Muslim specific rights. 13
The indicators used by Koopmans for the respective component are: 1. allowance of ritual slaughtering according to the Islamic rite, 2. Allowance of Islamic prayer in public, 3. Provisions for Muslim burials (Koopmans et al. 2005:55; 2008:7). Since only the third aspect applies to the cantons, this indicator has been used.
9
While the Swiss cantons provide general political representation rights for immigrants (captured by the component political participation of the MIPEX) no such rights are allocated to specific cultural groups, so this component was discarded. Similarly, no group specific affirmative action programmes exist in the cantons and cultural rights in public institutions14 are so far very weakly developed, why the respective components are so far irrelevant for the cantonal level. The aspect of cultural requirements for naturalization on the other hand varies from canton to canton and the respective requirements are clearly formulated in the cantonal citizenship laws. As for the MIPEX, only the component long term residence does not exhibit a significant variation among the cantons, why it was discarded from the measurement. To varying degrees, the remaining components could be measured at the cantonal level. Some components, such as anti discrimination, were measured by a simple dummy expressing the presence or absence of a respective clause in cantonal laws or constitutions. Other components, such access to nationality or political participation were captured by a broader set of indicators or sub-indices.15 The component access to the labor market could only be captured to a limited extent at the cantonal level: In Switzerland, immigrants‟ access to the labor market is broadly regulated at the national level.16 Yet, when it comes to cantonal employments, such as the cantonal administration, the police service, the judiciary or teaching at public schools, cantons are the main regulating instances, which allows for a measurement of the respective variances. The component family reunion was similarly covered by cantonal variations regarding this aspect, such as the extent of facilitation for EU-nationals or requirements regarding the living situation of the applicant. The aforementioned limitations and restrictions do not affect the level of variety revealed by the resulting measurement of cantonal integration policies, which is the main purpose of this inquiry. For the sake of conceptual coherence, additional aspects of cantonal integration policies such as financial indicators (cantonal integration credits) or the existence of cantonal
14
Such as Islamic religious classes in state schools, the right of female teachers to wear the Islamic headscarf or Islamic religious programmes in public broadcasting (Koopmans et al. 2005:57; 2008:7). 15 For the component access to nationality these indicators are “period of residence”, “charges”, “existence of a facilitated procedure” or a “right of appeal”. Political participation is captured by the indicators “existence of a foreigners‟ commission” and “foreigners‟ right to vote”. This last indicator constitutes in turn an own index consisting of several aspects related to “foreigners‟ right to vote” such as level (cantonal or only local), active or passive right to vote as well as requirements concerning status and residence period of the immigrant. 16 The most relevant legal document being here the foreigners law (“neues Ausländergesetz”, particularly chapter five „Zulassung zu einem Aufenthalt mit Erwerbstätigkeit“, articles 20 to 25).
10
integration laws, constitutional articles or specific cantonal guiding principles for integration have been discarded from the measurement.17
Categories of rights instead of citizenship dimensions A closer look at the components of the two citizenship dimensions reveals that they lack a coherent theoretical embedding. The components of the MIPEX cover such different issues as socio-structural (labor market access), political (political participation) or civic aspects (access to nationality). Equally, the cultural dimension comprises a mix of cultural and religious elements. Besides these theoretical concerns, the terminology of the two dimensions is not fully convincing. The description formal-legal dimension for the MIPEX might imply that the cultural dimension captures only non-legal aspects, which is not the case: The component cultural requirements for naturalization bases on legal regulations, similarly does the newly introduced component tendency for legal recognition of minorities’ religions. A last inconsistency is related to the division into two dimensions: While the CRI is considered group sensitive when it comes to cultural rights, cultural obligations (CRI component cultural requirements for naturalization) are addressed to immigrants in general and not to a specific immigrant group. The MIPEX is more consistent as all of its components operate at the level of individual access to formal legal equality. In search of a more solid theoretical base and conceptualization of the measurement for cantonal integration policies, a first inspection of the data has been carried out. A factor analysis of all the components measured at the cantonal level revealed a pattern which does not correspond to the two-dimensional model presented in table 1. Instead, four factors resulted from the analysis presented in table 2.
17
Respective articles in cantonal constitutions can be found in BL, BS, FR, GL, JU, NE, SG, SO , SH, VD and ZH. Integration laws are in force in GE, NE, VD, BS and BL. The following cantons and cities drafted own guiding principles for integration: AG, AR, BS, LU, OW, SG, SH, SO, TI, VS and the cities of Bern, Biel, Burdorf, Thun, Lausanne, Luzern , St.Gallen, Winterthur, Zürich and Wil. Source: EKM 2007a; own investigations in cantonal constitutions and legal texts.
11
Table 2 - Factor analysis based on components of MIPEX and CRI components 1 2 political participation -0.111 0.857 access to nationality 0.362 0.598 religious rights I 0.185 -0.679 religious rights II 0.257 0.492 labour market access 0.104 -0.012 cultural requirements for natural. 0.263 0.134 anti discrimination 0.353 -0.077 family reunion 0.288 -0.002
3 0.037 0.024 -0.045 -0.410 0.710 0.286 -0.303 0.074
4 0.114 -0.314 -0.065 -0.014 0.041 0.540 0.404 -0.476
Note: Principal factor analysis, varimax-rotated (orthogonal). Extraction of factors according to scree-test. Due to the negative correlation of the indicators of the component “religious rights outside public institutions”, this component will be split up and the two variables will be treated and analyzed separately. Religious rights I stands for the “tendency for legal recognition of minorities‟ religions”, religious rights II for the “allowance for Islamic burials”.
As could be expected, the factor loadings suggest that the components measure more subtle theoretical dimensions, which could rather be captured by different categories of rights or, as in the case of the cultural component, rights and obligations.18 In any case, a measurement based on the theoretical concept of rights and obligations would better correspond to the definitions of citizenship and integration policy presented above. Therefore, the components were aggregated along their highest factor loadings, creating thereby the following categories19: Factor one stands for political and civic rights while factor two represents religious rights. Factor three denotes socio-structural rights and factor four comprises cultural rights and obligations.20 In a next step, the four categories were aggregated to a comprehensive additive index, measuring cantonal integration policies. Together with the four categories of rights, this index built the base for the following descriptive statistics. Institutional “Röschtigraben” and structural discrimination of women In the present section, the resulting cantonal varieties will be illustrated, emerging patterns analyzed and implications of the respective variations considered. Figure 2 offers a first inspection of the univariate distribution at the comprehensive integration policy index level. Negative numbers denote rather restrictive policies, while positive numbers denote less 18
It seems important to note here that obligations are negatively correlated to rights. More rights mean less restrictive integration policies while more obligations stand for more restrictive integration policies. This fact has been considered in the coding of the respective variables measuring the category of cultural obligations. 19 The results of the factor analysis did not prove to be stable enough for an index-creation based on factor scores. Instead, an additive index-creation has been applied. For more information on the index-creation see table 3 in the appendix. 20 With the component “anti-discrimination” as the only component loading on another dimension as suggested by Koopmans. However, by its nature, the component seems to fit better in the cultural category than in the formal-legal dimension.
12
restrictive and more permissive policies towards cultural pluralism. At first glance, a clustering of negative values for central, mainly rural, German speaking cantons on the one and positive values for the French cantons (FR, VD, NE, GE, JU) plus Italian speaking Ticino (TI) are striking. The only French speaking canton below the mean value is Valais (VS), which is also geographically closest to central German speaking cantons. This linguistic divide, better known as “Röschtigraben” (e.g. Kriesi 1996; Danaci 2009) commonly describes a divide of mentality between the two largest Swiss language Groups which is systematically reflected in results of national votes. The evidence found in the data on cantonal integration policies suggests that this linguistic divide is not restricted to the individual behavioral level, but it even shaped cantonal policies at an institutional level.
Figure 2 – Cantonal integration policies
Note: Entries are z-transformed values.
In order to compare the cantonal variations with Koopmans international typology (cf. figure 1), a two-dimensional illustration of the data is presented in figure 3. Instead of Koopmans formal-legal and cultural dimensions, the respective modified categories of rights, political-civic rights and cultural rights and obligations will be applied here, keeping in mind that they measure similar aspects but in a more consistent and narrowed way. Compared to figure 1, where Switzerland was located uniformly in the assimilationist quadrant, figure 3 discloses considerable variations of the cantons along the two categories of rights. Even more 13
pronounced than in figure 2 a “Latin cluster” in the upper right quadrant denoting the permissive and less restrictive corner is discernible. Again, rural German speaking cantons lie closest to the lower left quadrant standing for the restrictive and assimilationist pole of citizenship.
Figure 3 – Two-dimensional citizenship map: civic-political and cultural rights and
1
obligations
GE
.5
AR FR
BS
LU
SG
0
SO TG
-.5
OW
NE
VD
ZH GR
JU
AG
BL
TI VS
BE SH ZG
SZ AI
-1
GL NW
-1.5
UR
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
cultural rights and obligations
Note: Entries are z-transformed values.
Based on the assumption that French speaking cantons might be influenced by France‟s jus soli citizenship tradition21, one would expect French-speaking cantons to spread in the upper left corner, similar to the “universalist” positioning of France in figure one. Yet, figure 3 reveals that French speaking cantons do not only exhibit less restrictive integration policies on the civic-political axis, but also on the cultural one. If we replace the cultural axis with the religious category (remember that both categories are integrated in Koopmans cultural dimension measured by the CRI), French speaking cantons are not any longer less restrictive on the respective axis (see figure 5 in the appendix). The more restrictive attitude of Frenchspeaking cantons regarding religious compared to cultural rights could again be explained by 21
For a more detailed discussion and test of the respective hypothesis see Manatschal 2009.
14
the respective national traditions, in this context Frances strict separation of state and church called “laïcité”.22 Turning to possible implications of this cantonal heterogeneity, it can be considered a source of structural discrimination of immigrants in general and singular immigrant subgroups in particular. Religious minorities such as Muslims are explicitly addressed by components measuring religious rights, whereby one could speak of direct discrimination. Less evident are cantonal variations of integration regulations which implicitly affect certain immigrant groups such as immigrant women. The component family reunion is an example for a potential source of indirect discrimination of women, since labor migration continues to be a very masculine domain. Accordingly, legal rules regulating the aspect of family reunion affect mainly wives who want to join their already resident immigrant husbands in the respective host country. Figure 4 contains the cantonal variations regarding the aspect of family reunion. In line with the pattern observed for the preceding categories and the comprehensive integration policy index, except Fribourg (FR) all French speaking cantons plus Ticino (TI) display positive values, denoting less restrictive policies in the area of family reunion.
Figure 4 – Cantonal variations regarding component family-reunion
Note: Entries are z-transformed values.
22
Empirical evidence of this “laïque” influence in French speaking cantons at the individual behavioral level is reported in Danaci (2009). For a similar influence at the institutional level of cantonal integration policies see Manatschal (2009).
15
Discussion Starting point of the present paper were subnational variations of integration policies, which are particularly pronounced in strongly federal Switzerland. In spite of the fact that similar regulatory differences constitute a serious source of structural discrimination of immigrants, subnational variations of integration policies are largely neglected by the scientific literature on migration policies. The main purpose of this paper was to fill this gap by capturing and illustrating the respective subnational variety. In consideration of the complexity of the topic integration policy, a comprehensive conceptualization based on a broad understanding of citizenship rights and obligations was chosen and an internationally established measurement transferred to the subnational level. The cantonal data reveal a clear cultural-linguistic pattern along French and German speaking cantons, with Italian speaking Ticino belonging rather to the French group. According to this pattern, Latin cantons display less restrictive integration policies at the comprehensive as well as at the categorical level. The empirical evidence fosters the assumption of an institutional “Röschtigraben”, a phenomenon otherwise observed at the behavioral level. A comparison with Koopmans international typology offers a plausible explanation whereby the linguistic gap regarding integration policies could be ascribed to a transborder influence of the citizenship traditions of neighboring France and Germany: In line with Frances jus soli tradition, French speaking cantons reveal less restrictive policies on the civic-political category. Integration policies in German cantons on the other hand are more restrictive, in accordance with the assimilationist jus sanguinis citizenship perspective prevalent in Germanic countries. Regarding the cultural dimension, the theoretical modifications of Koopmans measurement resulting in four categories of citizenship rights and obligations turned out to be productive and allowed for more subtle conclusions. If cultural and religious rights would have been treated as belonging to one and the same “cultural dimension”, as suggested by Koopmans, the “French” pattern of opposing approaches regarding civic-political and cultural rights on the one and religious rights on the other hand would have been ignored. It was only due to the differentiation between cultural and religious rights that the potential impact of Frances more radical approach of “laïcité” on the respective policies in French speaking cantons and the comparatively less restrictive requirements regarding cultural obligations in the same cantons could be accounted for.
16
From a gender perspective, a similar pattern is discernible: French speaking cantons and Ticino are generally less demanding in their regulations regarding family reunion than German speaking cantons. Thereby, the source of indirect structural discrimination of immigrant women is lower in Latin cantons. In general, structural discrimination occurring in one and the same country is problematic in that the extent of potentially discriminating regulations depends solely on geographic criteria and is therefore completely arbitrary. In this context, indirect discriminatory regulations such as regulations affecting immigrant women are a particularly delicate subject, since such indirect structural discrimination is less visible and might therefore be more difficult to approach than direct structural discrimination affecting specific groups such as religious minorities. Over the past decades, the topic of immigrant integration evolved into a national and even international concern. Considering discriminatory aspects of policy variations, possible harmonizing and converging effects emanating from an internationalization of the respective debates are particularly interesting. Similar to Germany, it was not until the 21st century that integration was considered a comprehensive national task in Switzerland involving all federal levels.23 In contrast to the scientific disregard, the complexity of the regulatory puzzle of cantonal approaches toward integration is the cause of ongoing political debates in Switzerland. Considerations on the necessity of a national integration law, regarding which a federal decision is expected before the end of the year, may be illustrative for the real political relevance of the topic. In the wake of harmonizing efforts at Germany‟s federal level, Henkes (2008:133) predicts a potential end of differing subnational approaches to integration policies. Even more than in Germany, cantonal variations of integration policies can be explained as the result of cantonal political contestation.24 As the recent adoption of the national initiative for a ban on minarets confirmed25, this contestation takes place mainly in the direct democratic arena. It remains to be seen whether and to what extent cantonal autonomy and direct democratic identity allow for a retrenchment of cantonal self-determination in the contested field of integration policies and give way to a national harmonization of cantonal disparities.
23
For Germany see Henkes 2009:133; the late sensitization of the federal level for the topic of immigrant integration in Switzerland is reflected in the respective legislation: It was not until the VIntA in 2000 that target and guidelines of integration were defined at the national level. 24 For empirical evidence on the strong relationship between xenophobic and exclusionary attitudes of the cantonal population and restrictive cantonal integration policies see Manatschal 2009. 25 National vote from 28th of November 2009.
17
Appendix Table 3 – Conceptualization and operationalization of cantonal integration policies international level
subnational level
indices
components
operationalization at cantonal level
MIPEX
labor market access
migrants access to job in cantonal administration teaching position police service judiciary right of foreigners to vote existence of foreigners’ commission period of residence charges facilitated procedure right of appeal cantonal definition of the criteria ”appropriate living place” differing criteria for EU- and third country nationals anti-discrimination prescription in constitution laws degree of integration required for naturalization cantonal implementation of “integration agreement” allowance for Islamic burials legal tendency for recognition of minorities religions -
Migrants Integration Policy Index
long-term residence political participation access to nationality
family reunion anti-discrimination
CRI
corresponding categories of rights and obligations socio-structural rights
comprehensive index
civic-political rights
cultural rights and obligations
cantonal integration policy index
cultural requirements for naturalization Cultural religious rights outside public religious rights I and II Rights institutions Index cultural rights in public institutions political representation rights (group specific) affirmative action Note: The theoretical conceptualization and operationalization of the international indices is based on the works of Koopmans et al. (2003; 2005; 2008), while an institutionalized edition of the MIPEX is provided by the British Council and the Migration Policy Group (see http://www.integrationindex.eu). Time span covered with dependent variable(s): 2005-2008. Data sources: BFM 2006; BFM 2008; Christmann 2009; EKM 2007 a&b; TAK 2005; TAK 2009a; cantonal constitutions and citizenship laws; own investigations in cantonal migration offices.
1 8
1
Figure 5 – Two-dimensional citizenship map: civic-political and religious rights
NE VD
.5
ZH GR
0
GE
AR
BS LU
FR TI
SG VS
BL
ZG OW TG
-.5
JU
SH AG
BE
SO
SZ AI
-1
GL NW
-1.5
UR
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
religious rights
Note: Entries are z-transformed values.
19
.5
1
Abbreviations
Swiss cantons AG
Argovia
AI
Appenzell Inner Rhodes
AR
Appenzell Outer Rhodes
BE
Berne
BL
Basel-Country
BS
Basel-City
FR
Fribourg
GE
Geneva
GL
Glarus
GR
Grisons
JU
Jura
LU
Lucerne
NE
Neuchâtel
NW
Nidwald
OW
Obwald
SG
St. Gall
SH
Schaffhausen
SO
Solothurn
SZ
Schwyz
TG
Thurgovia
TI
Ticino
UR
Uri
VD
Vaud
VS
Valais
ZG
Zug
ZH
Zürich
20
Literature
Akgün, L. & Tränhardt, D. (2001) Integrationspolitik in föderalistischen Systemen, Münster, Lit. Ballmer-Cao, T.-H. (2006) Les politiques publiques de l'égalité entre femmes et hommes. IN Knoepfel, P., Kriesi, H., Linder, W., Papadopoulos, Y. & Sciarini, P. (Eds.) Handbuch der Schweizer Politik. 4th ed. Zürich Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 845-869. Bauböck, R. (2006) Migration and Citizenship. Legal Status, Rights and Political Participation, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. BFM (2006) Probleme der Integration von Ausländerinnen und Ausländern in der Schweiz, Bern, Bundesamt für Migration im Auftrag des Departementvorstehers EJPD. „Brainstorming zur Integrationspolitik. Koordinationseffort zwischen Bund, Kantonen und Gemeinden“ NZZ from January 21, 2009, p.15. Brubaker, R. (1992) Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany, Cambridge, Mass. etc., Harvard University Press. Castles, S. & Davidson, A. (2000) Citizenship and migration. Globalization and the politics of belonging, New York, Routledge. Cattacin, S. (1996) Il federalismo integrativo. IN Cesari Lusso, V., Cattacin, S. & AllemannGhionda, C. (Eds.) I come...identità, integrazione, interculturalità. Zürich, Federazione delle Colonie Libere Italiane in Svizzera. Cattacin, S., Famos, C. R., Duttwiler, M. & Mahnig, H. (2003) Staat und Religion in der Schweiz - Anerkennungskämpfe, Anerkennungsformen. Studie im Auftrag des Schweizerischen Forums für Migrations- und Bevölkerungsstudien (SFM) im Auftrag der Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus (EKR), Bern. Cattacin, S. & Kaya, B. (2005) Le développement des mesures d'intégration de la population migrante sur le plan local en Suisse. IN Mahnig, H. (Ed.) Histoire de la politique de migration, d'asile et d'intégration en Suisse depuis 1948. Zürich, Seismo. 21
Christmann, A. (2009) Damoklesschwert Volksabstimmung? Genese von Anerkennungsregeln für religiöse Minderheiten in den Schweizer Kantonen. "Jahrestagung der SVPW" St. Gallen, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Zürich. D'Amato, G. & Gerber, B. (2005) Herausforderung Integration. Städtische Migrationspolitik in der Schweiz und in Europa, Zürich, Seismo. Danaci, D. (2009) Turning Switzerland's "Röstigraben" Upside Down: New evidence from the Political Divide between Swiss-German and French Speaking citizens. Working Paper. University of Bern. Efionayi-Mäder, D. (2006) L'immigration choisie. terra cognita, 9, 44-47. Eggert, N. & Murigande, A. (2004) Modèles de citoyenneté et mobilisation politique des migrants en Suisse: Le rôle des cantons. Swiss Political Science Review, 10(4), 125-145. EKR (2009) Strukturelle Diskriminierung. Tangram 24, November 2009. Entzinger, H. (2000) The Dynamics of Integration Policies: A multidimensional Model. IN Koopmans, R. & Statham, P. (Eds.) Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics: Comparative European Perspectives. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 97-118. Favell, A. (1998) Philosophies of integration. Immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain, Basingstoke etc., Macmillan etc. Favell, A. (2001a) Multicultural Nation-Building: Integration as Public Philosophy and Research Paradigm in Western Europe. Swiss Political Science Review, 7(2), 116-124. Favell, A. (2001b) Integration Policy and Integration Research in Europe: A Review and Critique. IN Aleinikoff, A. T. & Klusmeyer, D. (Eds.) Citizenship today: global perspectices and practices. Washington D.C., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
22
Giugny, M. and F. Passy (1997). Histoires de mobilisation politique en Suisse: De la contestation à l’intégration. Paris: L‟Harmattan. Helbling, M. & Kriesi, H.-P. (2004) Staatsbürgerverständnis und politische Mobilisierung: Einbürgerungen in Schweizer Gemeinden. Swiss Political Science Review, 10(4), 33-58. Helbling, M. (2008) Practising citizenship and Heterogeneous Nationhood. Naturalisations in Swiss Municipalities, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Henkes, C. (2008) Integrationspolitik in den Bundesländern? IN Hildebrandt, A. & Wolf, F. (Eds.) Die Politik der Bundesländer. Staatstätigkeit im Vergleich Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hunter, S. T. (2002) Islam, Europe's second religion. The new social, cultural, and political landscape, Westport, Conn., Praeger. IMISCOE (2008) The Future for Migration Research in Europe. IMISCOE Policy Brief. Ireland, P. (1994) The policy challenge of ethnic diversity. Immigrant politics in France and Switzerland, Cambridge, Massachusetts etc., Harvard University Press. Joppke, C. (1998) Challenge to the Nation-State. Immigration in Western Europe and the United States, Oxford etc., Oxford University Press. Kleger, H. & D'Amato, G. (1995) Staatsbürgerschaft und Einbürgerung - oder: Wer ist ein Bürger? Ein Vergleich zwischen Deutschland, Frankreich und der Schweiz. Journal für Sozialforschung, 35 (3/4), 259-281. Koopmans, R. & Kriesi, H. (1997) Citoyenneté, identité nationale et mobilisation de l'extreme droite. Une comparaison entre la France, l'Allemagne, les Pays-Bas et la Suisse. IN Birnbaum, P. (Ed.) sociologie des nationalismes. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Koopmans, R. & Statham, P. (2003a) Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics. Comparative European Perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
23
Koopmans, R. & Statham, P. (2003b) How National citizenship Shapes Transnationalism: Migrant Claims-Making in Germany, Great Britain and the Netherlands. IN Joppke, C. & Morawska, E. (Eds.) Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States. Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M. & Passy, F. (2005) Contested citizenship. Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe, Minneapolis; London, University of Minnesota Press. Koopmans, R. (2008) Tradeoffs between Equality and Difference: Immigrant Integration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State in Cross-National Perspective. WZB Discussion paper. Berlin, WZB. Kriesi, H., Wernli, B., Sciarini, P. & Gianni, M. (1996) Le clivage linguistique, Bern, Bundesamt für Statistik. Kymlicka, W. (1999) Multikulturalismus und Demokratie. Über Minderheiten in Staaten und Nationen, Hamburg, Rotbuch Verlag. Lavenex, S. (2004) Whither the Liberal Democratic Modell? Immigration Politics in Switzerland and Japan. Swiss Political Science Review, 10(3), 179-209. Lavenex, S. (2006) Einwanderungs-, Asyl-, Integrations- und Einwanderungspolitik. IN Klöti et al. (Ed.) Handbuch der Schweizer Politik. 4th ed. Zürich, Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Mahnig, H. (2001) Die Debatte um die Eingliederung von Migranten oder: was ist das Ziel von Integrationspolitik in liberalen Demokratien? Swiss Political Science Review, 7(2), 124-130. Manatschal, A. (2009) Assessing the Impact of Exclusionary Citizenship Conceptions on Cantonal Integration Policies. ECPR General Conference. Potsdam, Germany. Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and social class and other essays, Cambridge. Niederberger, J. M. (2004) Ausgrenzen, assimilieren, integrieren. Die Entwicklung einer schweizerischen Integrationspolitik, Zürich, Seismo. 24
Niessen, J. e. a. (2006/07) Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX II). British Council and Migration Policy Group. Online download: http://www.integrationindex.eu/ [last accessed: 15.12.09] Piñeiro, E. (2009) Fördern und Fordern im Fokus. Leerstellen des schweizerischen Integrationsdiskurses, Zürich, Seismo.Prodolliet 2006 (in Widerspruch 51), Sassen, S. (1998) The de facto Transnationalizing of Immigration Policy IN Joppke, C. (Ed.) Challenge to the Nation-State immigration in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford [etc.], Oxford University Press, 49-85. Schmitter Heisler, B. (2001) Immigration and Federalism in the United States. IN Akgün, L. & Tränhardt, D. (Eds.) Integrationspolitik in föderalistischen Systemen. Münster, Lit. Soysal, Y. N. (1994) Limits of citizenship. Migrants and postnational membership in Europe, Chicago etc., University of Chicago Press. SR 142.20. Bundesgesetz über die Ausländerinnen und Ausländer (AuG), vom 16. Dezember 2005 (Stand am 1. Januar 2009). SR 142.205. Verordnung über die Integration von Ausländerinnen und Ausländern (VIntA), vom 24. Oktober 2007 (Stand am 1. Januar 2008). TAK (2005) Rechtliche Integrationshemnisse. Auslegeordnung und Lösungsansätze, Bern, Tripartite Agglomerationskonferenz. TAK (2009a) Weiterentwicklung der schweizerischen Integrationspolitik. Rohmaterial zu den einzelnen Themen zuhanden der Teilnehmenden der TAK-Hearings. Bern, Tripartite Agglomerationskonferenz. TAK (2009b) Weiterentwicklungen der schweizerischen Integrationspolitik. Bericht und Empfehlungen der TAK vom 29. Juni 2009. IN Agglomerationskonferenz, T. (Ed.) Bern, Tripartite Agglomerationskonferenz. Tilly, C. (1995) citizenship, identity and social history. International Review of Social History, Supplement 3, 1-17.
25
Vatter, A. (2006) Die Kantone. IN Klöti, U. & al., e. (Eds.) Handbuch der Schweizer Politik. 4 ed. Zürich, Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Wicker, H.-R. (2003) Migration und die Schweiz, Zürich, Seismo.
26
