Leadership and public commitment to migration and integration

2. Ben Gidley, COMPAS
Eurocities, Integrating Cities, Amsterdam March 2012

3. 1. Why does leadership and public communication
matter?
2. Key findings from EIF projects: AMICALL,
SPARDA, Concordia Discors
3. Some 'promising practice' examples

4.  Common Basic Principle 1: 'Integration is a dynamic,
two-way process of mutual accommodation by all
immigrants and residents of Member States.' (2004)
 More recently: highlighting 'strong commitment by
the host society' – the importance of public
attitudes

5.  A 'toxic' topic
 European pattern:
negative attitudes –
attitudes and 'salience' of
attitudes
 Evidence base:
Transatlantic Trends,
Eurobarometer, Pew
Global Trends, European
Social Survey...
Chart: Migration Observatory

6.  Who counts as ‘a
migrant’? Which groups
are negative attitudes
towards?
 Mismatch between
perceptions and realities,
e.g. on numbers
Chart: Ipsos
SPARDA First
Wave report
2011

7. Significant differences across
the population
 Age, education levels,
social class, age cohort,
gender, ethnicity, etc
 A sizeable 'tolerant
minority'
Chart: Ipsos
SPARDA First
Wave report
2011

8. Negative Neutral Positive
Significant variations, e.g.
 Regional and local 0%
11% 7% 12%
2%
18%
differences: not 25% 19%
24%
correlated to migrant 39%
38%
55%
presence – urban areas 41% 54%
considerably less hostile
89%
69%
48%
 People more worried 45% 43%
34%
27%
about national than local
effect of migration Patras Limassol Reggio Emilia Coimbra Dingli Valencia/PN Lyon
Chart: Ipsos
SPARDA First
Wave report
2011

9. The projects:
 AMICALL (lead: COMPAS)
 SPARDA (lead: Council of Europe)
 Concordia Discors (lead: FIERI)
Projects funded by the European Union’s European Fund for the
Integration of Third Country Nationals (European Integration
Fund – EIF)

10. Research partners: Central University, Budapest
(Hungary); COMPAS, Oxford (UK); EFMS,
Bamberg (Germany); Erasmus, Rotterdam
(Netherlands); FIERI, Turin (Italy);
Complutense, Madrid (Spain)
Associate partners: Council of Europe; MPI
Europe
Evaluation: Goldsmiths, University of London
http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/research/urbanchange/amicall/

11.  Experience – cities in some countries more
sophisticated than others (eg. NL, UK: HU); also
regional differences (IT, UK)
 Framing – cities often use other frames, such as
‘social cohesion’ or ‘urban citizenship’, as more
useful than integration (NL, UK); also target
groups: immigrant, second generation, ethnic
minority, national minority

12.  Diversity/immigration within community:
 Length/type of experience (Rotterdam, Budapest)
 Community feeling/strength (can vary over time)
 LRA capacity
 Devolved competence to manage integration
 Human and financial resources
 LRA Structure and Organization
 Info/data availability

13.  National/local level political orientation
 National political discourse
 National governance of immigration/integration
 Events, emerging debates
 E.g. Sarrazin debate in Germany
 The role of the media at national/local level
 Supportive, inflammatory, reinforcing?

14.  Reaching new groups? – concern about only reaching
those populations already engaged. Implication:
understand targeting better?
 Budgets – fiscal austerity: cities concerned about
future resources for communications. Implication: how to
sustain activities in light of austerity measures
 Evaluation and Impact – evaluation tends to be
difficult to do, and impact hard to ascertain. Implication:
develop models for measurement and learning?

15.  Individual leadership – importance of key officers/teams
as champions (opportunity/risk). Implication: development
of sustainable structures and strategies
 Beyond myth-busting: strategic/embedded
communications and place shaping. Implication:
Communication and engagement as holistic process.
 Community matters: understanding needs and issues,
and considering the whole-of community effects.
Implication: place-shaping and evidence-based approach.

16. Seven European cities
Evaluation: IPSOS Research
Institute
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/sparda

17.  Multiple approaches to communication
 Participatory campaigns and intercultural approaches
 Giving voice to migrants – using multiple media channels
and innovative use of public space
 Local partnerships
 Difficulties of communicating aims and of evaluating
effectiveness
 Importance of involving stakeholders genuinely
 Importance of strategic vision (full audience spectrum)
 Threats
 Contradicting forces, e.g. national media, ‘interference’
 Resources

18. Research partners: TARKI,
Budapest (Hungary); COMPAS,
Oxford (UK); EFMS, Bamberg
(Germany); FIERI, Turin (Italy);
Autonomous University,
Barcelona (Spain)
Associate partner: European
Policy Centre (EPC)
http://www.concordiadiscors.eu/

19.  Place matters: Integration (incl attitudes) is a property of
space not of persons or society
 Top-down narratives cannot survive without coherent
policies in support
 Bottom-up narratives cannot survive without stakeholders
 Narratives produced locally can influence media narratives.
Common (i.e. shared by residents and local policy community)
narratives = necessary but not a sufficient condition, along with the
presence of strong local stakeholders who interact with media.
 When local stakeholders are strong, quarters seem to be more
resilient to exogenous factors (media campaigns, city or national
political campaigns, etc.).

20.  Place-shaping: 'Wij Amsterdammers' ('We
Amsterdammers'), NL. Also: Copenhagen (VI KBH’R campaign), Antwerp
(‘This city is for everyone’), Zurich (‘Living Zurich’), Istanbul (‘Yours Istanbul’),
Kirklees (‘Belonging to Dewsbury’) and Vienna (‘Feeling at home’).
 Platforms for dialogue: Neu-Isenburg’s 'Living Diversity'
initiative in 2010, DE
 Beyond myth-busting: Barcelona’s 'anti-rumour' campaign
as part of the Local Plan for Interculturality, ES
 Participation, interculturalism and place-shaping: soup
festival Richtsberg district in Marburg, DE – based on Lille
model, FR; ‘Tutti sono diversi da tutti, per fortuna/Mondo tra i
fornelli’ (Word by the oven), Reggio Emilia, IT

21.  Dr Ben Gidley, Senior Researcher, Centre on
Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) University
of Oxford ben.gidley@compas.ox.ac.uk
http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk
 Liz Collett, Director, Migration Policy Institute
Europe ecollett@migrationpolicy.org
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/europe/mpieurope/
 Lilia Kolombet, Council of Europe
Lilia.KOLOMBET@coe.int http://www.coe.int/
 FIERI http://www.fieri.it/