Despite the growing interest in immigrant integration in a wide range of scholarly literature, there is less interest in how integration might be understood by the public. Using a surveyembedded conjoint experiment in the Netherlands and the UK, we ask the public what they think constitutes successful immigrant integration. We show that the public has a multidimensional view of integration, which goes beyond a simple preference for cultural assimilation. We discover that there is a remarkably stable hierarchy of preference of integration outcomes, which is a matter of wide spread consensus in both our countries among different social groups and people with different attitudes on immigration. Using the British data we also show an integration penalty for immigrants of non-white origins. Our article places public opinion of immigrant integration at the heart of a rapidly expanding research agenda into the social and political impacts of immigration. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

This article examines whether the Web and particularly a new breed of civic action sites operated by non-governmental actors provide a new pathway into wider community engagement. Using an innovative mixed methodology, we conduct a qualitative and quantitative over-time analysis of the users of four civic action sites developed by mySociety, an online UK non-profit organisation. The key question posed is whether the highly targeted or ‘particularised’ actions that these sites promote, such as contacting a local councillor, have a spill-over effect in terms of increasing feelings of empowerment in the local community. Alternatively are they attracting and reinforcing the resource bias of the most active citizens? The results are mixed in that they confirm that users of these sites are typically more aware and engaged than average. However, it is also clear that they have integrated these tools into their existing repertoire of engagement and this reinforces their feeling that they can have an impact on their wider communities. Overall, the study suggests that involvement in collective rather than individual approaches to resolve problems is most likely to further increase individuals’ levels community engagement.

In this paper, we explore views on the implementation of migrant integration 'policy' in a setting characterised by devolution, using data collected among local and national policy stakeholders in the UK. More specifically, we focus on localism and mainstreaming, which have recently dominated policy debates and endeavours about integration. Our findings shed new light on the challenges and opportunities of these strategies as they are perceived and experienced by policy stakeholders. In particular, we reflect on the important interplay between different levels of governance and the tensions that arise out of these in a devolved context. Our evidence suggests that the shift from centralised to localised policy action is faced with several challenges. First of all, there is a contradiction between the localism agenda, with the devolution of powers and responsibilities, and the context of austerity. Secondly, there are frictions between levels of governance in the devolved UK context, and particularly on how the implementation of integration at the local level is affected by non-devolved policies. Finally, with regard to mainstreaming the need for a more flexible policy approach that recognises and embraces the complexity and dynamism of the integration process is emphasised.

No abstract