Ws4 amicall for eurocities
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Ws4 amicall for eurocities

  • 514 views
Uploaded on

Leadership and public commitment to migration and integration

Leadership and public commitment to migration and integration

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
514
On Slideshare
452
From Embeds
62
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 62

http://www.integratingcities2012.eu 62

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Ben Gidley, COMPASEurocities, Integrating Cities, Amsterdam March 2012
  • 2. 1. Why does leadership and public communication matter?2. Key findings from EIF projects: AMICALL, SPARDA, Concordia Discors3. Some promising practice examples
  • 3.  Common Basic Principle 1: Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States. (2004) More recently: highlighting strong commitment by the host society – the importance of public attitudes
  • 4.  A toxic topic  European pattern: negative attitudes – attitudes and salience of attitudes  Evidence base: Transatlantic Trends, Eurobarometer, Pew Global Trends, European Social Survey...Chart: Migration Observatory
  • 5.  Who counts as ‘a migrant’? Which groups are negative attitudes towards? Mismatch between perceptions and realities, e.g. on numbers Chart: Ipsos SPARDA First Wave report 2011
  • 6. Significant differences across the population Age, education levels, social class, age cohort, gender, ethnicity, etc A sizeable tolerant minority Chart: Ipsos SPARDA First Wave report 2011
  • 7. Negative Neutral PositiveSignificant variations, e.g. Regional and local 0% 11% 7% 12% 2% 18% differences: not 25% 19% 24% correlated to migrant 39% 38% 55% presence – urban areas 41% 54% considerably less hostile 89% 69% 48% People more worried 45% 43% 34% 27% about national than local effect of migration Patras Limassol Reggio Emilia Coimbra Dingli Valencia/PN Lyon Chart: Ipsos SPARDA First Wave report 2011
  • 8. The projects: AMICALL (lead: COMPAS) SPARDA (lead: Council of Europe) Concordia Discors (lead: FIERI)Projects funded by the European Union’s European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals (European Integration Fund – EIF)
  • 9. Research partners: Central University, Budapest (Hungary); COMPAS, Oxford (UK); EFMS, Bamberg (Germany); Erasmus, Rotterdam (Netherlands); FIERI, Turin (Italy); Complutense, Madrid (Spain)Associate partners: Council of Europe; MPI EuropeEvaluation: Goldsmiths, University of London http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/research/urbanchange/amicall/
  • 10.  Experience – cities in some countries more sophisticated than others (eg. NL, UK: HU); also regional differences (IT, UK) Framing – cities often use other frames, such as ‘social cohesion’ or ‘urban citizenship’, as more useful than integration (NL, UK); also target groups: immigrant, second generation, ethnic minority, national minority
  • 11.  Diversity/immigration within community:  Length/type of experience (Rotterdam, Budapest)  Community feeling/strength (can vary over time) LRA capacity  Devolved competence to manage integration  Human and financial resources  LRA Structure and Organization  Info/data availability
  • 12.  National/local level political orientation  National political discourse  National governance of immigration/integration Events, emerging debates  E.g. Sarrazin debate in Germany The role of the media at national/local level  Supportive, inflammatory, reinforcing?
  • 13.  Reaching new groups? – concern about only reaching those populations already engaged. Implication: understand targeting better? Budgets – fiscal austerity: cities concerned about future resources for communications. Implication: how to sustain activities in light of austerity measures Evaluation and Impact – evaluation tends to be difficult to do, and impact hard to ascertain. Implication: develop models for measurement and learning?
  • 14.  Individual leadership – importance of key officers/teams as champions (opportunity/risk). Implication: development of sustainable structures and strategies Beyond myth-busting: strategic/embedded communications and place shaping. Implication: Communication and engagement as holistic process. Community matters: understanding needs and issues, and considering the whole-of community effects. Implication: place-shaping and evidence-based approach.
  • 15. Seven European cities Evaluation: IPSOS Research Institutehttp://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/sparda
  • 16.  Multiple approaches to communication  Participatory campaigns and intercultural approaches  Giving voice to migrants – using multiple media channels and innovative use of public space  Local partnerships Difficulties of communicating aims and of evaluating effectiveness  Importance of involving stakeholders genuinely  Importance of strategic vision (full audience spectrum) Threats  Contradicting forces, e.g. national media, ‘interference’  Resources
  • 17. Research partners: TARKI, Budapest (Hungary); COMPAS, Oxford (UK); EFMS, Bamberg (Germany); FIERI, Turin (Italy); Autonomous University, Barcelona (Spain)Associate partner: European Policy Centre (EPC) http://www.concordiadiscors.eu/
  • 18.  Place matters: Integration (incl attitudes) is a property of space not of persons or society Top-down narratives cannot survive without coherent policies in support Bottom-up narratives cannot survive without stakeholders  Narratives produced locally can influence media narratives. Common (i.e. shared by residents and local policy community) narratives = necessary but not a sufficient condition, along with the presence of strong local stakeholders who interact with media.  When local stakeholders are strong, quarters seem to be more resilient to exogenous factors (media campaigns, city or national political campaigns, etc.).
  • 19.  Place-shaping: Wij Amsterdammers (We Amsterdammers), NL. Also: Copenhagen (VI KBH’R campaign), Antwerp (‘This city is for everyone’), Zurich (‘Living Zurich’), Istanbul (‘Yours Istanbul’), Kirklees (‘Belonging to Dewsbury’) and Vienna (‘Feeling at home’). Platforms for dialogue: Neu-Isenburg’s Living Diversity initiative in 2010, DE Beyond myth-busting: Barcelona’s anti-rumour campaign as part of the Local Plan for Interculturality, ES Participation, interculturalism and place-shaping: soup festival Richtsberg district in Marburg, DE – based on Lille model, FR; ‘Tutti sono diversi da tutti, per fortuna/Mondo tra i fornelli’ (Word by the oven), Reggio Emilia, IT
  • 20.  Dr Ben Gidley, Senior Researcher, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) University of Oxford ben.gidley@compas.ox.ac.uk http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk Liz Collett, Director, Migration Policy Institute Europe ecollett@migrationpolicy.org http://www.migrationpolicy.org/europe/mpieurope/ Lilia Kolombet, Council of Europe Lilia.KOLOMBET@coe.int http://www.coe.int/ FIERI http://www.fieri.it/