Migration-related city networks: a global overview

Abstract

In recent years, one observes a surge in the number of city networks formed to address the welcoming and integration of immigrant populations. Drawing on a database of over sixty networks, the paper provides a global overview of their different types, scales and activities. Exploring the underlying factors explaining this worldwide expansion, it highlights two sets of congruent dynamics. This phenomenon has been elicited by the longue durée devolution to local authorities of powers and responsibilities pertaining to the management of immigrant populations on the one hand and the recent events of the 2015-2016 'migration crisis' on the other. It is also the outcome of the top-down influence of international organisations (including the European Union) and the bottom-up mobilisations of municipalities facing the growing contradictions between their welcoming responsibilities and security-oriented migration management. In the concluding section, the paper points to the challenges faced by international actors for the building of a 'glocal' migration governance.

La construction négociée de l’accueil des migrants par les municipalités

“…L'Union européenne met en place une série de programmes destinés à soutenir les municipalités dans la mise en place de politiques d'intégration 13 . Sur le plan scientifique, les études comparatives entre villes européennes se multiplient 14 , de même que les travaux sur la constitution de réseaux de villes transfrontaliers 15 .…”

European city network on migrants with irregular status: Exploring functions and outcomes on a sensitive policy issue

“…A series of reasons have been cited to explain the global proliferation of TMNs, foremost among them the decentralization of responsibility for migration related issues to municipalities, with a lack of commensurate resources, and the dual challenge of an overlapping remit with the national tier (LaCroix, 2021). The development of divergent local policies, and tensions with higher tiers of governance to which that can lead, has encouraged municipalities to develop horizontal relationships with their peers in other countries.…”

“…They may be part of or supported by European or international organizations (“co‐opted”), or initiated by municipalities themselves (“grassroots”). From his study of over 50 migration networks globally, Lacroix finds they differ in their agendas, activities and scope: grassroots networks more likely to engage in knowledge exchange but also in lobbying, and to be more challenging of conventional approaches to integration (2021). Where there is a relationship with a larger institution, what is less clear is whether it is necessarily one of co‐option, with the element of control that implies; nor what impact the relationship has on the capacity of the network to fulfil the aspirations of its members.…”

French city networking: Drivers and rationale for national investment

“…First, this dynamic sheds light on the fact that the welcoming of migrants is embedded in city networks focusing on migration at international, EU and national levels. Although few European cities have joined migration‐related city networks in decades prior (Flamant, 2014), there has been an unprecedented city investment and not only from the ‘pioneer of pioneers’ (Lacroix, 2021; Oomen, 2020). Above all, a new assertive stance on behalf of migrant rights underpins recent city networks in Europe.…”

“…It contributes to the reflection of migration networks’ functions, which have been mainly analysed in the case of international networks (Caponio, 2017; Oomen, 2020; Scholten & Penninx, 2016). While relying on the canvass proposed by Oomen on the functions, this article reveals the drivers that lead French cities to prefer the investment in a ‘grassroots network’ (Lacroix, 2021). It sets out the change of discourse in French cities towards migration, from integration issue to welcoming issue, and the possibilities and impossibilities of politicized networks to act on migration governance.…”