Dynamics of Power in Dutch Integration Politics : From Accommodation to Confrontation

Abstract

SOLIDARITY AND IDENTITYIn the past decades several large-scale social, cultural and economic developments have occurred. Processes of economic restructuring (de-industrialization) have brought into existence new categories of unemployed people; the process of individualization is manifested in increased individual independence, a growing sense of personal rights, and -possibly -in a growing opposition between self-interest and civil virtues; the increased world-wide mobility of people, commodities, services, money and information -globalization -has far-reaching consequences for the way individual citizens are living and experiencing their lives. Contemporary society is characterized by cultural and ethnic diversity. People's social and cultural identities have become more varied. What are the consequences of these developments for the way people form social bonds and experience mutual solidarity in our society? Is there any empirical support for the widespread idea that social solidarity is declining? Which social domains -care, volunteer work, living together in old city quarters, relations between family members, neighbors, friends, etcetera -are the most vulnerable for a potential decay of solidarity? What is the role of familism and within-group solidarity among immigrant communities? Which new challenges are brought about by the multicultural society in terms of new forms of cultural expression, new (group) identities, new alliances, new institutions, new forms of formal and informal support? These and similar questions are the theme of the series Solidarity and Identity.editors of the series

Between National Models and Multi-Level Decoupling: The Pursuit of Multi-Level Governance in Dutch and UK Policies Towards Migrant Incorporation

“…During these elections, immigrant integration was framed in relation to issues as criminality, Islam, radicalization and decline of social cohesion. In response to this sharp politicization, Rotterdam developed a more assimilationist policy that concentrated in particular on neighbourhoods where migrants are relatively overrepresented (Uitermark 2010). This is clearly manifested in the peak of attention to both integration policy and civic integration after the 2002 elections (see Fig.…”

“…One of the policy initiatives involved the introduction of the 'Rotterdam Code', or a set of basic rules of social behaviour for everybody in Rotterdam. In addition, Rotterdam intensively lobbied the national government to adopt a law on 'Special Measures for Urban Areas', which provided the municipalities with means for preventing the settlement of people from low-income categories or with social security benefits in designated urban areas (Uitermark 2010). This was also called the 'Rotterdam law' as it was pushed only by Rotterdam, but also implemented only in Rotterdam.…”

How Local Networks Shape a Global Movement: Comparing Occupy in Amsterdam and Los Angeles

“…Nicholls & Uitermark, 2011). In Amsterdam, social movements have declined and fragmented over the last two to three decades (Uitermark, 2004(Uitermark, , 2012. The squatting movement and the movement for immigrant rights had contracted to small groups, while movements with a considerable member base, such as the environmental movement and the labor movement, had become strongly embedded within national consultative bodies and funding structures.…”

Super-diversity and urban policies in Amsterdam

“…According to Joppke, the shift towards the problematisation of (foreign) culture and the concomitant abandonment of multiculturalism was driven by a concern with the diversification of migration flows, a fear of increasing segregation, and the enduring economic marginalisation of allochthonous (Joppke, 2004). (Uitermark, 2012;Shadid, 2006). In this debate, Muslim values are seen as fundamentally incompatible with Western and especially Dutch culture (cf.…”