The implementation trap: the local level and diversity policies

Abstract

There is widespread agreement that the local level has become more self-confident and self-reliant in formulating its own immigrant policies and sometimes developing distinct philosophies of immigrant incorporation. However, to date we know little about the actual capacities of cities to implement these philosophies consistently. This article offers a level-specific study of the governance of immigrant incorporation by European municipalities. It focuses on cities with diversity policies and it compares the meaning of diversity in formulated policies with policy implementation. Identifying an implementation gap of diversity policies in Antwerp, Amsterdam and Leeds, it argues that cities may have become more self-reliant and self-confident in coming up with their own ideas and concepts for governing immigration, but this may not mean that they also consistently implement these ideas. This article identifies two explanations for an implementation gap and different capacities across cities to consistently implement such policies. Points for practitionersThe article establishes two explanations for the inconsistent implementation of policies, focusing on the case of local diversity policies, and delineates how this plays out across different cities. These findings are relevant as they allow us to define the conditions for consistent policy implementation.

Enhanced local-level willingness and ability to settle refugees: Decentralization and local responses to the refugee crisis in Norway

“…The ensuing implementation gap experienced with regard to settling refugees prior to 2015 showed that this decentralized decisionmaking system for regional distribution could not guarantee sufficient settlement (Schiller, 2017;Steen & Røed, 2018). One weakness has been the lack of instruments for the government to instruct the local level to receive and settle refugees (Hernes, 2017).…”

“…If the municipal council decides to settle a certain number of refugees, we want to manage it-and we do! (Project interview, employee in first-line services, small municipality) Schiller (2017) noted that a change in policy does not guarantee change in implementation.…”

“…The other interlinkage is connected to local policy change combined with changes in implementation. Schiller (2017) has demonstrated the gap between policies promoting diversity and practices for implementation on city level.…”

Governing difference in the city: urban imaginaries and the policy practice of migrant incorporation

“…They range from 'non-policy', where no migrant-specific policy is instituted and problems are reacted to on an ad hoc basis, 'guest worker policy', designed as a temporary solution until migrants return to their home country, 'assimilationist policy', aiming to integrate migrants through minimizing their ethnic difference, to 'pluralist policy', which does not seek to minimize but accommodates or even celebrates ethnic group identity. In recent years, arguments have been made for the addition of a fifth phase, variously labelled diversity, intercultural, or post-multicultural policy (Ambrosini & Boccagni, 2015;Schiller, 2015;Uitermark et al, 2005). What typifies this new formcontra pluralist or multiculturalist policiesis the focus on individuals rather than migrant groups, and the incorporation of other aspects of difference like gender and sexuality.…”

“…Some argue that local governments tend to be more pragmatic and efficiency-oriented (Bak Jørgensen, 2012;Poppelaars & Scholten, 2008) while national governments focus on symbolic actions in a highly politicized and mediatized context. However, others argue that the reframing and reshaping of national policies at the local level not only result from differing circumstances 'on the ground' but also reflect diverging ideas and norms (Schiller, 2015) and imaginaries of local places and communities Walker & Leitner, 2011).…”