New
Policy for an Old Problem? The Integration of Migrants in Amsterdam and the
role of Ethnic Organizations in this Process.
Presentation for the
workshop . NGO. s in the face of Immigrant an Refugee Reception and
Settlement Dynamics. 6th International Metropolis Conference in
Rotterdam, November 28, 2001.
Maria
Berger and Floris Vermeulen
Institute
of Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES)
University
of Amsterdam
The
same developments can take place at the same time in very different parts of
the world. The outline of the Canadian migrant policy described in the workshop
proposal has many similarities with current migrant policy in Amsterdam. In
Amsterdam, this policy originates partly from the criticism on the Dutch
migrant policy of the last 25 years. Local authorities feel that there is a
need for a new kind of policy. We can ask the question if this new policy will
succeed in the integration and social equality of migrants in Dutch society. Or
to formulate the question differently; is there a possibility that the new
policy will have a reverse effect and jeopardize the integration of migrants
even further?
In
this presentation we want to look at the intellectual framework behind this new
policy in Amsterdam and see what effect it has on migrant organizations and
their role in the integration process.
In order to do that we will describe the debate on integration policy on the
national level and give some illustrations of everyday practice of Dutch
migrant policy on the sub-local level. The reason that we decide to do that is
twofold. First, migration policy in the Netherlands has seen in the last 10
years an enormous decentralization, from the national to local to the sub-local
level. To show the current results of Dutch migration policy one has to describe
therefore the sub-local level. Second, there is a vibrant discussion going in
the Netherlands on the quality of the integration policy of the last 25 years.
We use this national debate as an illustration for a common felt idea among
many local politicians and civil servants that the results of the Dutch
integration policy in general are very disappointing.
Current
migration policy in Amsterdam
The current local government
in Amsterdam has changed its policy towards migrants and migrant organizations
in the last years from a so called . target group policy. to
a . diversity policy. . What are the differences between the two?
- . Target group policy. is a
policy in which the local government chooses in advance groups that should
be targeted with additional policy measures to raise their social position
to the general level. One aspect of the policy is that these groups, such
as Turks, Moroccans, women or homosexuals, can rely on extra funding for
their social organizations. Another aspect is specific help in education,
labor market and housing.
- . Diversity policy. is a more general deficiency policy.
Poverty, unemployment and discrimination are embattled by structural and
general policy measures. If deprivation and poverty is accumulated in
certain groups, such as migrants, there is no need for additional measures
because those special measures are not working and general policy will
help anyone, so specific deprived groups will get attention anyhow.
Furthermore, specific migrant policies are regarded to enhance processes
of stigmatization and minorization.
Criticism from conservative and . new
left. circles on Dutch integration policy
The . diversity policy. can easily be placed
within the framework of the national public debate on integration that is
being held in the Netherlands since the beginning of the 1990. s. Public
opinion tends to be influenced by the view that the Dutch integration policy of
the last 25 years has been a complete failure. Even though the Netherlands has
spend more money than any other European country on integration policies;
ethnic relations seem still to be very fragile and ethnic tensions, although
not clearly visible, remain close to the surface. The consequences of the 11th September
showed this once more. The most important criticism however, is that 25
years of progressive migrant policy has not ended deprivations, poverty, unemployment
or bad school results of migrants, nor is there any real sight of improvements
on the short run. Critics from . new left. and conservative circles
explain this failure by pointing at three important elements:
1. The progressive integration policy in
the Netherlands has been characterized by so-called . integration with
conservation of ethnic identities. . Dutch integration policy
has since 1980 tried to integrate immigrants by simultaneously conserve
their ethnic identity. This was done by teaching migrant children
their own language, actively supporting mono ethnic organizations and
establishing an intensive . target group policy. to combat social
inequality. Critics state that this policy has hampered integration instead
of accelerating it. The policy measures have emphasized the different ethnic
identities and resulted, according to the critics, in an increasing ethnic
segregation in the Netherlands. The idea of conservation has led to passivity
for all groups, because integration seemed to be of less importance. Dutch
elite could easily ignore the problems of migrants, stating that everybody
was entitled to their own lifestyle. In addition to that, the support of
mono ethnic organizations within the framework of . target group policy. is
supposed to have led to the originating of ethnic enclaves within Dutch
society. Critics state that there seems to be no other choice but to embrace a
Dutch identity for all migrants and leave their ethnic identity with their mono
ethnic organizations aside.
2. The
second element in the criticism is that the Dutch should take a firm position
in the conservation of their own Dutch culture. Moreover, the fundamentals of
Western Democracy should not be trifled with. Migrants should be very conscious
about the Dutch culture and what it means to have a tolerant democratic
society, for instance this means that there is a strong division between the
State and the Church. The Dutch State should be tolerant for those who want to
join and embrace these fundamentals and harsh and firm for those who disagree
with them. Tolerance is something one has to work for, otherwise it becomes
indifference and this can be very dangerous in a multi ethnic society.
3. The
third element of criticism is closely related to the second. Critics point to
the fact that more than half of the migrants in the Netherlands are Islamic.
Islam has according to the critics a fundamental different way of looking at society
than Western culture does. The main point is that the Islamic religion does not
truly accept the division between Church and State. Within migrant families,
there exists a very different religious culture, which severely hampers the
integration of migrant children in Dutch society. Besides that, Islamic
religion is not supposed to stand out for their tolerant opinions.
The
critics have made the following recommendations to speed up the integration
process of migrants in the Netherlands:
·
More attention for the Dutch nation state and its
historic culture.
·
Firm measures to teach migrants the Dutch language
and get them familiar with its culture, all to increase the participation of
migrants in Dutch society.
·
No support for mono ethnic organizations, only civic
multi-ethnic welfare organizations can ask for financial support and only those
who strictly work for the integration of migrants in host society.
·
Strict division between Church and State in the
public arena. This means for instance that on public schools and other public
institutions there is no place for religious expressions, such as headscarves
for women and girls.
These
policy recommendations are not very new or original; one can find the same
arguments in many other Western countries, such as Germany, France or Canada.
The interesting question however is, what will be the result of this policy and
is their analysis of the Dutch integration policy correct?
Policy in Amsterdam on the sub-local level
We have the fortunate
opportunity to test these questions by looking at two different city districts
in Amsterdam and their integration policy in the 1990. s. The
city of Amsterdam counts 13 different city districts with their own local governmental
structure. Because migrant policy is decentralized during the 1990.
s, city districts had the opportunity to implement their own integration
policy. There are at least two city districts who have used a migrant
policy that has many similarities with the so called . diversity policy.
which is, as we have seen, closely related to the criticism described above. Migration scholars have investigated both districts, focusing especially
on the position of ethnic migrant organizations. This enables
us to look at the role of ethnic NGO. s in the process of integration.
The two city districts,
. Zeeburg. and . Amsterdam-East. are both located in the east of
Amsterdam, and they have both a majority of Socialists in the local council. Both
districts have implemented a general deficiency policy, with in principal no
special attention for ethnic groups. There were three reasons why they decided
to do that. First, the local politicians felt that special measures would
not have positive results. Second, in both districts many different migrant
groups are living: target group policy would therefore encompass too many
groups. And third, politicians were afraid that target group policy would enhance
the ethnic divisions in their district by ignoring native Dutch residents
and their demands. On the other hand, the local government of district
. Amsterdam-East. felt that it was of vital importance that migrants
should participate more in the Dutch society and in the local policy.
This district has accordingly chosen to implement a policy, which can be
characterized as . diversity policy. , but with contacts with ethnic
groups. Migrant organizations could be very helpful in this process. For
that reason we focus now only on the district of . Zeeburg. , to get a
good impression of the effects of a strict 'diversity policy'.
The city district 'Zeeburg'
Migrant
associations were indeed contacted also in Zeeburg to promote the participation
of migrants in society, but only if they had no stern ethnic or religious
character. This policy created a huge tension between the organizations and the
local government. Organizations felt that they were not truly wanted or
respected and especially not on their genuine character. The city district of
Zeeburg rather wanted to do business with general welfare organization, not
based on any ethnic or religious identity. Even if there was a structural lack
of contact with a certain ethnic group, the authorities were unwilling to
cooperate with specific ethnic associations. The only migrant associations that
received money, but no structural attention, were non-religious and able to
provide general services that were not provided by the large welfare
organizations. As a result of this many mono ethnic associations were left
aside. Research in the district of Zeeburg has shown that those left out
organizations were pushed together and formed ethnic clusters within the city
district, forming a Turkish Muslim network and a Moroccan Muslim group. In the
district, one suspected extremist organization existed. The city district had
no contact with or information on this organization.
So,
instead of embattling segregation this policy has rather increased segregation
and closing off contact between groups and the authorities. Notice the
similarities between the Canadian and the Amsterdam case; the authorities
appreciate migrant organizations as civic but not as cultural institutions, the
authorities select their partners and perceive them as their agencies, and the
exclusionary effects of the policy by leaving religious organizations out.
The result
of the research in the district of Zeeburg is very interesting because it
shows a fundamental element that is lacking in the new policy and in the analysis
of criticism described above. This is the element of the dynamics of migrant
groups themselves. Migrant groups exist of many different individuals with
different demands and wishes. This can be illustrated by the many mono ethnic
organizations that are founded in Amsterdam. The new . diversity policy.
has one serious problem; it has to be consequent. By taking a firm position,
refusing contact with ethnic and religious groups it loses direct access to the
migrant groups. This can have serious consequences, especially in times of
crisis. Besides that, actively engaging in influencing the culture of migrants
to make it more fitting with Western society will definitely mean more tension
between ethnic groups. Moreover, once started with this policy there seems no
way back. Another important element in refusing the analysis of critics against
Dutch migration policy is that it highly overestimates the influence of
cultural elements. The two most important institutions in the social
participation and integration of migrants are: the labor market and the school
system. Both institutions are very much dominated by Dutch middleclass culture
and therefore a call for more rethinking and passion for Dutch culture is not
needed.
In the public debate in the
Netherlands, there is another interesting element: religious leaders of migrant
groups embrace the criticism that the Dutch integration policy of the last 25
years has been a complete failure.
They state that the authorities have left them, as religious leaders, out.
Dutch authorities have in the past mainly talked to the wrong migrants.
Authorities preferred to speak to those persons and those ethnic organizations
who where willing to go along with the integration policy, but those migrants
had supposedly no constituency. In seems paradoxical that the religious leaders
join Dutch critics, because in the new policy there is certainly no place for
them. It also raises the question, how much difference there is between the old
and the new policy. If representatives of the old policy refused to speak with
religious groups, the statement is questioned whether Dutch authorities were in
the past really interested in conserving the ethnic identity of migrants.
Research has shown that religious organizations have never been structural
partners in the integration policy of the Dutch government, not on the national
nor on the local level.
For instance, attempts to start an independent Islamic university or institute
for Islamic leaders in the Netherlands have failed, mostly because of the lack
of financial participation from Dutch authorities.
Imams are brought over from Turkey, Morocco or other countries to lead Mosques
in the Netherlands. This has been one of the obstructions in the integration
process of migrants in this country, according to many experts.
Conclusions
We feel that
the arguments politicians and others have used to explain their reluctance to
actively supporting mono ethnic organizations are based on false assumptions. Mono
ethnic religious organizations have never been actively and structural supported
in the Netherlands. The statement that supporting those organizations has
hampered integration is therefore premature. We would argue the opposite;
not supporting those organizations will cut off direct access to migrant groups,
which as a result will obstruct integration. Migrants have had and always
will have the need for religious institutions. If those organizations are
not available in host society, they will create them themselves, with
or without the support of local authorities. Actively supporting these
organizations does not mean that one totally agrees with the ideas and
arguments of the members of these organizations. One could also make a sophisticated
distinction between different forms of support, like subsidy, help with
accommodation or involvement in different stages of the policy making process. It
does however mean that one is willing to actually cooperate and come into
contact with those groups. Contact is of utmost importance in a multicultural society.
Research on migrant policy in Amsterdam-East has shown this once
more, stating that the contact of the city district with migrant organizations has
had a positive result on the participation and integration of migrants in
the district. Something that would be missing if they had implemented a
strict . diversity policy. , like Zeeburg.
A
strict . diversity policy. can in addition to the described disadvantages, be
easily used by local politicians as an excuse for totally ignoring migrants and
their specific position in host society.
Research
in Amsterdam has also illustrated that migrant groups who are the most organized,
show the most interest in the local society.
Because
of their organizations, they are exposed to institutions of host society.
If the local authorities refuse to talk and work with those associations,
ethnic enclaves will originate. The associations in those enclaves
will not feel responsible for the world outside their circle of groups.
In our research project . The quality of multicultural democracy in
Amsterdam and Berlin. supervised by Meindert Fennema and Jean Tillie from the
University of Amsterdam, we study these processes and will use a historical
and international perspective, to understand how these processes work. We do
not promote a cultural relativistic approach stating that every cultural
expression should by all means be presevered. However, we have empirically
proven that collective action based on ethnicity is not always an obstacle for
integration, on the contrary.
And second, migrants will always found their own associations and these
associations have beside their practical function also other functions, such
as, the accumulation of social capital and the creation of social networks
through which information can flow. Ethnic organizations occupy key position
within those networks, and are therefore very important in connecting groups in
a multicultural society.
To
end this presentation, we call migration scholars to investigate organizational
behavior of migrants within a broad perspective. Migrant organizations are not
only protectors of ethnic interests, but have also other sociological and
political functions. Research should illustrate and explain those different
functions to show that no multicultural society can easily ignore them. We need
to go beyond the visible and daily functions of organizations and show that
their importance also lies in other levels of society.
Furthermore, we call scholars to integrate their own
national research within the international context. Comparing the
settlement processes of migrants in different countries can help us
understand how policy measures can have an effect on different forms of
integration. Too often integration policy is considered something
indivisible, whereas in reality the integration process can be divided in
economical, political, social and cultural elements. Countries can excel
on one area, but fail on another. Research has to show that we need to
distinguish these areas, before we can start to judge the success of a
national integration policy.
References
Alink,
Fleur, and Maria Berger. "Deuren naar een andere wereld:
een
onderzoek naar de invloed van het beleid op Turkse
en Marokkaanse organisaties in twee Amsterdamse stadsdelen.", Universiteit
van Amsterdam, 1999.
Broer,
Thijs, and Tino Wallart. "Roger van Boxtel is terug bij
af." Vrij
Nederland 29 september 2001.
Cliteur, Paul B. "Jemen in Nederland. Over het
cultuurrelativisme als
vermeende basis voor het multiculturalisme."
In Multiculturalisme, cultuurrelativisme en sociale cohesie, edited by
Paul B. Cliteur and V. Van den Eeckhout. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers,
2001.
Eldering, Lotty. "Multiculturele ideologie leidt tot
uitsluiting." NRC
Handelsblad, 16 maart
2000.
Fennema, Meindert, and Jean Tillie. "Civic community,
political participation
and political trust of ethnic groups." Connections 24, no. 1
(2001): 26-41.
Germain,
Annick, and Stephan Reichhold. "Workshop proposal: NGO's in the
face of immigrant and refugee reception and settlement dynamics: is
their role complementary or alternative to geovernmental policies?".
International Metroplis Conference Rotterdam, 2001.
Koopmans,
Ruud, and Paul Statham, eds. Challenging immigration and ethnic
relations politics: comparative European
perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Olgun,
Ahmet. "'In Islamitisch Nederland ontbreekt elke
intelectuele
ontwikkeling'." NRC Handelsblad, 27
oktober 2001.
Penninx,
Rinus, and Boris Slijper. 'Voor elkaar?' Integratie,
vrijwilligerswerk en
organisaties van migranten. Amsterdam:
IMES, 1999.
Scheffer, Paul. "Het multiculturele drama." NRC
Handelsblad, 29 januari
2000.
. . . . "Het multiculturele drama: een repliek." NRC
Handelsblad, 25 maart
2000.
. . . . "Vernis van verdraagzaamheid bladdert af."
NRC Handelsblad, 17
november 2001.
Van den Brink, Gabriël. "Nederland is niet
multicultureel." NRC Handelsblad,
18 maart 2000.
Van Walsum, Sander. "'We zijn geen gastarbeiders met
een toga aan'." De
Volkskrant, 21 mei 2001.
Vermeulen, Floris. "Migrants,
Organizations and Commuties: Theoretical
Inferences for Historical
Research on Migrant associations in Amsterdam, 1960-1990.". University of
Amsterdam: Unpublished paper, 2001.
Waardenburg, J. D. J.
"Institutionele vormgevingen van de islam in Nederland
gezien in
Europees perspectief.". Den Haag: WRR (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het
Regeringsbeleid), 2001.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. .
Nederland als
immigratiesamenleving, Rapporten aan de
Regering nr. 60. . Den Haag: Sdu
Uitgevers, 2001.
Wolff,
Rick, Anja Van Heelsum, and Rinus Penninx. "Migrantenbeleid.
Erkend,
aangesproken, aanspreekbaar?". Amsterdam:
Stadsdeelbestuur Oost/Watergraafsmeer, 1999.
Wynia, Syp. "Terug: de
natiestaat." Elsevier 13 oktober 2001.
