Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Europe has become a continent of immigration in the course of the last half century, and European societies have experienced growing ethnic and cultural diversity. Governmental actors have often made great efforts to collect and develop the knowledge and expertise to understand integration processes and to control and steer these. Major differences, however, exist between European countries in the way relations between policy and research on immigrant integration have evolved. In this first chapter three aspects of such research-policy dialogues are introduced. First, we look at concrete dialogue structures, formal or informal arrangements, such as advisory bodies, through which knowledge is exchanged. Secondly, we look at cultures and practices of knowledge utilization in policy processes. Thirdly, we look at cultures of knowledge production in the field of migration research itself. In this introductory chapter some main hypotheses are developed for each of these three aspects. These hypotheses will serve as guidance for the entire book. In Part I of the book forms and functions of research-policy dialogues will be further explored, mostly on a comparative basis. Part II analyses seven country cases plus the case of the European Union.

Despite the extensive literature on patterns of knowledge utilization in policymaking, there is very little scholarship comparing different ‘cultures’ of knowledge use across polities. The literature on national policy styles suggests that such values and beliefs can shape patterns of policymaking in different systems of public administration. But it is likely that such differences in administrative cultures also produce distinct ways of thinking about and drawing on expert knowledge. This chapter explores how such differences might influence patterns of research use in immigration policy in Germany and the UK. To this purpose a detailed comparative analysis is made of the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and the British Home Office. The main conclusion is that, while national cultures may shape the use of research to legitimize decision makers, other factors appear to be more influential, namely the nature of political debate (how technocratic it is), and the policy sector (whether legitimation is secured through rhetoric or delivery).

This chapter is about the role of statistics in the shaping of policies regarding migration and migrant integration. In the nineteenth century already states began to feel a need to register their residents so as to find out who qualify for certain entitlements and who do not, for example because they originate in another country. Population statistics were crucial in symbolically achieving this goal. Soon the need was felt for an international harmonisation of population statistics, particularly those related to international migration. It took very long, however, to achieve this goal at a European level, and even more so at a global level. Actually, major steps forward were not made until the 1990s, when intra-European migration increased rapidly after the end of the Cold War. The EU took on a coordinating role in this field, which led, in 2007, to the publication of the Statistics Regulation. In 2010, member states also reached an agreement on indicators for immigrant integration. Yet, this chapter argues that, in spite of increased harmonisation of statistics, a comparison of migration data between EU member states remains complicated, for example because of conceptual differences, differences in registration practices and in policies. This is even more so for a comparison of data on migrant integration. The available sources continue to be quite diverse, and differential policy objectives lead to persisting differences in what is actually being registered and what is not.

The notion of national models of integration is a very popular one in comparative migration studies as well as in the making of integration policy. A key trait of such national models is that they assume policies to be formulated and coordinated in a strongly state-centred way, reflecting national institutional legacies, national politics and public perceptions of national identity. In this respect, the literature distinguishes, for instance, the French republican model, the British race-relations model and the Dutch multicultural model. In this chapter two such models, those of France and the Netherlands, are described, analysed and critically assessed. The conclusion is that national models of integration are an inappropriate tool for the comparative study of integration inasmuch as the objective of such research is to assess the success or failure of a national approach to integrating migrants. The notion of national models is tainted by normative (if not moral) connotations that hinder the ability of social scientists to address empirical reality.

Both Germany and the Netherlands have over the past decade established temporary consultative commissions in an effort to rethink their policies on immigration and integration. In response to growing pressure over the framing of Germany as ‘’ (‘not an immigration country’) the German government established an Independent Commission on Migration in 2000. In the Netherlands, in response to a broadly supported parliamentary motion that stated that the Dutch approach to integration had thus far been ‘insufficiently successful’, a parliamentary investigative commission on integration was established in 2002. Both commissions faced the challenge of rethinking national models of integration, deeply entrenched in national public and political discourses. To that purpose both called upon various established researchers and experts in their respective countries. Both commissions presented findings that became fiercely contested in public and political debate. The work of the migration scholars that had been consulted also became part of these contestations. Although both commissions have been able to make some contribution to a reframing of national policies, the comparative analysis of the two also makes clear that rethinking integration policies with the help of expert advice will in general be very difficult. The authors conclude that governments should not initiate investigative commissions to resolve political controversies, nor should (scientific) experts have themselves tempted to define policy frames.

Research-policy dialogues may take place not only at the national and EU level, but also at the local level, especially in cities. However, research on how local policymakers call on researchers, or how researchers try to influence the policymaking process in cities is scarce. This chapter explores research-policy dialogues in European cities: their forms, contents and use. Furthermore, it addresses the question of how local research-policy dialogues relate to national policies and what role the EU plays in promoting horizontal exchange of knowledge between European cities. It concludes that especially the EU has played a key role in promoting the horizontal exchange of best practices by providing research funding and by establishing various European city networks.

This chapter describes how the EU has acquired more influence on policymaking and research concerning migrant integration in the member states, and how it has made use of expert knowledge in its efforts to develop a common policy. Two important milestones are described and analysed in detail by a former senior EU administrator who was closely involved at the time: the (2000) and the (2004). In both cases there was a very strong input of researchers to European policymaking. This was facilitated by the fact that there was not at first great interest from other policy areas in the European Commission nor from national governments. The research-policy nexus that developed at this period also had an impact on the development of this nexus at the national level in several of the EU’s member states. Since then, the Commission has been playing an active role in planning research and highlighting its outcomes, for example through its successive Framework Programmes, by promoting research co-operation between member states and by trying to improve the collection of basic and comparable statistics.

The dynamics of the EU’s research-policy nexus may have made it more difficult for other stakeholders than academia and policymakers to influence EU policymaking in the field of migrant integration. The general absence of migrant voices and of civil society more generally from the research-policy nexus is the result of several factors that have positioned migrants as the object of study and recipients of policy measures rather than as active contributors. These factors include: the lack of transparency and accountability in EU migration policymaking; the focus of much migration research on policy concerns (currently integration and security); the use of research methodologies that investigate migration-related topics from theoretical and expert, academic positions; and the exclusion of migrant voices from media coverage. All of these are analysed in this chapter, which concludes that, in the end, the voices of migrants and of researchers alike, even of those who use the most innovative methodologies, are unlikely to have significant or measurable impact on the policy priorities of the member states and in the EU Council of Ministers.

This chapter addresses the relation between research and policymaking in the field of migrant integration for the Austrian case. When it comes to integrating migrants in Austria, knowledge, and particularly scientific knowledge, plays a central role in related discourses and dialogues. In contrast, practical everyday knowledge from civil society organisations active in the field of migrant integration seems to play a more limited role. The Austrian case reveals a division of labour between scientists as primarily ‘knowledge producers’, NGOs as primarily ‘knowledge translators’ and political decision makers as primarily ‘knowledge users’. However, this division of labour is increasingly blurred by several overlaps: non-scientific bodies such as NGOs and state ministries have recently assumed and incorporated scientific personnel within their structures, and many individuals are engaged in several activities simultaneously.

Italy is usually characterised by political scientists as a country with a high degree of penetration of party politics over public administration and civil society. Experts are often considered either marginal or controversial figures. Especially when involved in policymaking, experts tend to be linked to specific political parties, and claims of impartiality are met with suspicion. This explains why in Italy it took a rather long time before a true dialogue between academia and policymakers developed, while once a formal dialogue structure was set in place, in the late 1990s, it did not last very long. Since then, the use of expert knowledge by policy makers has been primarily of a symbolic nature, either of a legitimising or of a substantiating kind, or it has not been used at all. For instrumental utilisation to occur, responsible and interested policymakers and public officials must be in place, a condition that seems to have been met in only few specific cases.