The City As an Agent of Refugee Integration
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Urban Planning (ISSN: 2183–7635) 2018, Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 91–100 DOI: 10.17645/up.v3i4.1646 Article The City as an Agent of Refugee Integration Jeroen Doomernik * and Djoeke Ardon Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, 1001NB Amsterdam; The Netherlands; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.D.), [email protected] (D.A.) * Corresponding author Submitted: 27 June 2018 | Accepted: 7 September | Published: 20 December 2018 Abstract In this contribution, we investigate how the role of cities in the governance of refugee integration has changed as a conse- quence of the Europeanization of asylum policies into a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) in conjunction with the “refugee crisis” of 2015, which this CEAS turned out to be unable to adequately cope with. We will answer this question by first giving a quick overview of scholarly thinking on the role of the city in global issues in general, and in migration issues in particular. After this we provide an exploratory analysis of the role cities presently see for themselves as cities, as well as jointly organized in European networks. Keywords asylum; city networks; Common European Asylum System; integration; migration; refugees Issue This article is part of the issue “European Cities Planning for Asylum”, edited by Frank Eckardt (Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany). © 2018 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu- tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction recently, and especially after the 2015 “asylum crisis”, research increasingly includes the lower levels of gover- There is an important stream of literature arguing for nance, such as the special issue of the Journal of Refugee a more local approach to global issues in general and, Studies on local refugee policies (Glorius & Doomernik, though less so, migration issues in particular. Authors 2016). A growing academic appreciation of the impor- such as Benjamin Barber and Saskia Sassen who famously tance of multi-level governance, notably in the European coined the concept of the “global city”, have noticed the Union (EU), has come together with the highly visible re- political power and agency of cities in today’s globalized alities of the said “crisis” which have largely played out at world. Normally, states assume responsibility for those is- the local level (Doomernik & Glorius, 2016). sues, yet cities may be better equipped to deal with them. The present contribution focuses on cities and their Barber (2013) argues that we need a “global parliament networks as increasingly important players in the EU of mayors” and implies that the centre of global govern- and its member states’ response to the arrival of asy- ing should be within the city. Even though Barber’s argu- lum seekers and refugees. When national sovereignty is ment is slightly provocative, his reasons and arguments at stake, as is the case with the admission of refugees provide a new theoretical paradigm to look at the role and immigrants, individual cities—which we define as of the local level within multi-level governance. In the urban administrative units, and usually the lowest rung field of migration studies, a “local turn” has taken place of national political stratification—as a rule execute poli- (Caponio & Borkert, 2010; Zapata-Barrero, Caponio, & cies decided upon at the national level. However, we Scholten, 2017). Where previously migration, refugee can observe how cities contest policies or seek and exer- and asylum policies were by and large understood to be cise discretion when national policies turn out to be un- national in nature (e.g., Doomernik & Jandl, 2008), more enforceable, politically undesirable or at cross-purposes Urban Planning, 2018, Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 91–100 91 with their specific mandate (e.g., maintaining public or- agents of change. He identifies two advantages of cities der; see, for the Dutch case, Kos, Maussen, & Doomernik, over states. First, while nation states’ efforts at coopera- 2016; for the US, Canada and the UK see Bauder, 2017). tion can be “crippled by the issue of sovereignty”, cities Cities steering their own course is thus not particularly do not face such limits. They are thus less likely to be- new or unique for Europe. However, it would seem that come venues of nationalistic politics. Secondly: two developments together have boosted their role: the growing Europeanization of asylum policies, thus open- The seeming indifference of cities to power politics ing up new opportunities for political venue-shopping for and sovereignty, a feature that distinguishes them city governments above the national level; and the un- from states, is critical to their inclination to out-reach expectedly high influx of asylum seekers in 2015, which and networking. They prefer problem solving to ideol- put considerable strain on the EU’s ability to jointly deal ogy and party platforms, which is a core strength criti- with their arrival. In effect, cities all over Europe had cal to their network potential. That they lack appetite to act in the face of national governments that were for sovereignty and jurisdictional exclusivity enables overburdened or even unwilling to take responsibility them as agents of cross border collaboration. (Barber, (Doomernik & Glorius, 2016). The present article asks 2013, p. 71) how this has changed the role European cities identify for themselves and how they organize horizontally and Similarly, Kratz and Nowak (2017) demonstrate how the vertically in response to these new challenges. city embodies reason and pragmatism against a rising Next, we provide an overview of the main arguments populist tide in the EU and the US alike. arising out of the scholarly literature as to why cities In today’s globalized world, cities are increasingly net- claim (and some would say deserve) agency in the gov- worked; they are collaborating internationally in a wide ernance of immigration and refugee integration. Then variety of inter-city networks in which they are quite ef- we proceed to sketch what the main European city net- fective. We will see below that there are many city net- works lobby for. For this we review their policy docu- works doing productive work in lobbying, policy trans- ments. In other words: we limit ourselves to statements fer and policy initiation in Europe’s migration policy field. issued by local governments, singly and collectively. Ob- Cities such as Stuttgart, Barcelona, Hamburg, Vienna viously, this does not result in a representative image of and Amsterdam have become hubs of urban networking, what cities’ positions are, for those who do not partici- spawning new associations almost every year. pate in networks that clearly promote a larger role for Cities appear to possess the unique combination of themselves and (usually meaning) inclusive policies re- representing a level of governance that is local and thus main out of view. Finally, we evaluate in which domains able to represent pragmatism, efficiency and legitimacy, these present policy ambitions depart from those that but at the same time being able to learn from each other traditionally belong to the realm of urban governance, through horizontal networking, e.g., about how to navi- and thus those that represent a European “local turn” in gate vertical relationships, and formulating cooperative response to the “refugee crisis”. solutions with other cities in the world. 2. Cities and Governance 3. Cities and Migration A first reason why cities are becoming more important in Most immigrants arrive in cities, where they work and go global governance lies in growing populations and ditto to school, find houses, do groceries and look for health- economic impact. Just over half of the world’s population care. Refugees, which we treat as a sub-category of mi- lives in cities and these earn 60% of global GDP.Refugees grants, are in particular need of support from local gov- too predominantly resettle in cities. ernments in terms of education, language and health- Also in terms of political legitimacy, cities have fea- care. Therefore, immigration is a prime example of a tures distinguishing themselves from national or supra- global issue playing out at the local level, both in the field national governments. Mayors often boast approval of integration and in the field of citizenship. Furthermore, rates 2 or 3 times higher than those of national legisla- cities deal practically with immigrants, even though na- tors or chief executives (Barber, 2013, p. 84). Cities are tional governments exercise their role as the sovereign more intimate to their population than national govern- who decides about admission and membership for those ments. For the European Commission, this is one of the who are non-nationals. Indeed, as the Organization for motives for engaging local governments with its policies Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) ob- (De Mulder, 2017). serves, the cost of integrating refugees is largely borne by A third argument why cities matter for global politics sub-central governments, which is funded through lump is the fact that they are politically better suited for it than sum payments from the national level, where the vari- nation states. Or at least, as Barber (2013, p. 74) provoca- ous and varying needs of refugees in local contexts is not tively writes: “Nation states have not shown much capac- taken into account (OECD, 2017). ity to rule the world”. According to Barber (2013, p. 4), Next to inclusion and integration policies, national in the face of increasing globalisation, cities must be the membership status itself is also defined and acted out Urban Planning, 2018, Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 91–100 92 within cities, especially when this is about more than le- healthcare, and some municipalities in Italy exclude irreg- gal status. As Isin (2000, p. 6) notes: “Global cities are ular migrants from public housing.