Mainstreaming migrant integration? A critical analysis of a new trend in integration governance
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852315612902 |
| Author | Elizabeth Collett,Milica Petrovic,Peter Scholten |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Symposium Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(2) 283–302
Mainstreaming migrant
! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
integration? A critical analysis
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315612902
of a new trend in integration
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
governance
Peter Scholten
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Elizabeth Collett
Migration Policy Institute Europe, Belgium
Milica Petrovic
European Commission, formerly Migration Policy Institute
Europe, Brussels
Abstract
In the academic literature, mainstreaming is conceptualized as a shift in policy focus
(from specific to generic), as well as in governance (from state-centric to poly-centric).
Whereas mainstreaming has been applied in various areas, such as gender, disability and
environment, a more recent application concerns migrant integration, which has so far
been under-studied in academic circles. This article provides a critical analysis of main-
streaming as a supposed ‘trend’ in migrant integration policies. It provides a conceptual
discussion of what mainstreaming might mean in the field of migrant integration in an
effort to connect the concept of mainstreaming as used in other fields to the literature
on migrant integration, and notably the emerging concept of interculturalism. Following
this, it provides an empirical analysis of shifts in integration governance and policy in
Denmark, France, Germany and the UK in an effort to explain whether mainstreaming,
as conceptualized, is taking place. The article concludes that mainstreaming as a concept
in the field of migrant integration can only partially explain policy developments. There
is, indeed, a clear trend towards more poly-centric governance and towards generic
policies. However, such policies rarely involve efforts to create a generic awareness of
migration-related diversity, and are often overshadowed by broader national narratives
on migrant integration, and pre-existing governance structures. However, the existence
of an explicit pursuit of replacement strategies at the local level suggests that main-
streaming approaches may be a way of circumventing these national narratives and
governance structures.
Corresponding author:
Peter Scholten, Erasmus University Rotterdam – Public Administration, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000DR,
The Netherlands.
Email: p.w.a.scholten@fsw.eur.nl
284
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(2)
Points for practitioners
. Potential degenerative effects of target group constructions can be averted by proxy
strategies that are defined area- or needs-based rather than group-based.
. Mainstreaming also demands poly-centric governance structures that allow for horizontal
(interdepartmental, multi-actor) and vertical (multi-level) coordination mechanisms to
avert policy decoupling.
. Mainstreaming does not mean total group-blindness; mainstreaming works best when
combined with knowledge of and sensitivity to these groups, while preventing formalizing
target group constructions.
. Mainstreaming is not just an option, but also a necessity, for policies in super-diverse
cities, where group distinctions can no longer be made.
Keywords
mainstreaming, migrant integration, migration, multi-level government, policymaking,
public administration
Introduction
Mainstreaming has been studied in relation to various ‘cross-cutting’ policy
challenges, such as gender, disability and environment. It is mostly conceptualized
as a shift in policy focus, as well as in governance. In terms of policies, it
would involve a shift from policies that are targeted at specific target groups
to more generic policies adapted to address the ‘whole of society’. In terms of govern-
ance, it would involve a shift from state-centric efforts to poly-centric modes of gov-
ernance that cut across a variety of policy sectors and involve multiple actors.
A more recent application of the concept of mainstreaming involves migrant inte-
gration. Migrant integration involves a highly politically contested issue in which the
definition of the policy problem has been almost constantly at stake. After the rise and
fall of multiculturalism (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010) and what some have
described as the ‘assimilationist turn’ in European integration policies (Brubaker,
2001; Joppke and Morawska, 2003), some European governments are rethinking
their policy approaches towards their increasingly diverse societies. A key part of
this revision of policy philosophies across Europe is referred to in terms of the ‘main-
streaming’ of immigrant integration policies into generic policies. For instance, France
is increasingly adopting neighbourhood-oriented approaches rather than measures
oriented at the foreign-born, or according to religion or culture. The concept of main-
streaming has even found its way into a European set of Common Basic Principles
of Integration.
This article provides a critical analysis of this recent mainstreaming ‘trend’ in
migrant integration policies. First, it provides a conceptual discussion of mainstream-
ing, connecting the public administration literature to conceptualizations of main-
streaming in gender, disability and environmental studies, and finally to migration
studies in particular. The issue of the mainstreaming of integration policies speaks
Scholten et al.
285
to a broader debate in the public administration literature on the definition or ‘social
construction’ of target groups (Pierce et al., 2014; Schneider and Ingram, 1997). As
most European urban societies have become ‘hyper-’ or ‘super-diverse’ (Vertovec,
2007), multicultural policies aimed at specific ‘minority groups’, as well as assimila-
tionist policies based on a clear national identity, have become more difficult to
achieve. Furthermore, the issue of mainstreaming speaks to the debate on multi-
level or ‘poly-centric’ governance. With the complexity of constructing target groups
and the eradication of ‘integration policy’ as an isolated policy niche, the coordination
of policies becomes a complex process involving multiple actors at various levels and in
various policy domains. This means a radical break with the often centrally coordi-
nated multiculturalist or assimilationist policies of the past.
This article aims to develop a better understanding of whether, how and why
mainstreaming is actually taking place in the field of migrant integration, and the
extent to which the concept of mainstreaming is capable of explaining recent policy
shifts. To this aim, this article conceptualizes what mainstreaming actually means
in the field of migrant integration and develops a comparative case-study analysis
of the mainstreaming of integration policies in Denmark, France, Germany and the
UK. These analyses involved policy analysis covering a 10-year period between
2003 and 2013, as well as interviews with key stakeholders in these countries.
Conceptualizing mainstreaming
A key difficulty with the study of emerging concepts such as mainstreaming is
establishing a clear conceptualization for empirical analysis. Mainstreaming as a
concept has emerged as much from policy as from academic literature. Take for
instance European Union (EU) programmes in the field of disability and gender
mainstreaming, which provided a boost to the concept of mainstreaming.
Furthermore, the concept seems much entrenched with specific policy issues,
such as gender, disability and environment. This makes it hard to theorize the
concept across domains. Therefore, in this section, we will first take up the concept
as defined in the areas where it has been most used (gender, disability, environ-
ment), then connect it to more general public administration literature before con-
necting it to migration studies in particular.
Mainstreaming in policy literature
Mainstreaming has been applied as a concept in gender studies since the early 2000s
(Verloo, 2005; Walby, 2005) and later also in disability (Seddon et al., 2001) and
environment studies (Nunan et al., 2012). In these studies, several key aspects of
mainstreaming are defined. First, there is the substantive aim of, as Verloo (2005:
13) describes it for gender, ‘the incorporation of all gender and women’s concerns
into general policymaking’. This implies that gender, disability and environmental
concerns would previously have been taken too much as specific concerns, specific
to women, disabled people and those directly involved in environmental policies.
286
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(2)
This dimension of mainstreaming (from specific to generic policies) speaks to
the literature on target group constructions (Pierce et al., 2014; Schneider and
Ingram, 1997), which draws attention to the implications of target group construc-
tions for political decision-making and for policy design. Mainstreaming would then
be about avoiding such effects of target group constructions by targeting policies at
the whole society rather than at specific groups. However, whether mainstreaming
does, indeed, avert target group constructs altogether has not been studied thus far.
A second dimension of mainstreaming refers to the governance of general
awareness for issues like gender, disability and environment. This dimension is
clearly manifested in the definition of gender mainstreaming used by many scho-
lars: ‘the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy
processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all...
To continue reading
Request your trial