The implementation trap: the local level and diversity policies
| Author | Maria Schiller |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315590204 |
| Subject Matter | Symposium Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(2) 267–282
The implementation trap: the
! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
local level and diversity policies
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315590204
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Maria Schiller
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic
Diversity, Germany
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 munici-
palities. It focuses on cities with diversity policies and it compares the meaning of diver-
sity 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 practitioners
The 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.
Keywords
cities, diversity, implementation, organization, policy, post-multicultural
Introduction
There is widespread agreement that the local level has become more self-confident
and self-reliant in formulating its own immigrant policies and sometimes develops
Corresponding author:
Maria Schiller, Department of Socio-Cultural Diversity, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and
Ethnic Diversity, Hermann-Fo¨ge-Weg 11, 37073 Go¨ttingen, Germany.
Email: schiller@mmg.mpg.de
268
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(2)
distinct approaches to governing migration-led diversification (Caponio and
Borkert, 2010; Hadj-Abdou, 2014; Jorgensen, 2012; Levey, 2012).1 However, to
date we know little about the actual capacities of cities to implement their policies
consistently. This article offers a level-specific study of the practices of implement-
ing so-called diversity policies2 by European municipalities. It identifies the ways in
which diversity policy goals diverge from the activities implemented and it explains
the reasons for such discrepancies.
The gap between political goals and policy outcomes has been of central interest
in policy studies (Linder and Peters, 1989) and an analytical framework to assess
this gap was developed for the policy area of immigration control at the national
level by Lahav and Guiraudon (2006). They use a multi-level governance approach
by pointing out the importance of international structures for national-level poli-
cies. More studies should in their view engage with the venues where policies are
shaped, elaborated and implemented (Lahav and Guiraudon, 2006: 207). This
article follows this call, drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in local administra-
tions. It also takes on board their advice to take into account different actors’
interests and the discretionary power bureaucrats may have (Lahav and
Guiraudon, 2006: 214). I apply this analytical framework to analyse local diversity
policies and identify a gap between diversity policies’ claim to pursue an individual
and positive approach to differentiation and a continued identification of target
groups in diversity departments’ activities. Thus groups are singled out based on
categories such as ethnicity or religion. This article seeks to explain this implemen-
tation gap by drawing on the comparison of case studies in Amsterdam, Antwerp
and Leeds.
By doing so, this article also contributes to the literature on the multi-level
governance of immigrant policies (Caponio and Borkert, 2010; Hepburn and
Zapata-Barrero, 2014; Jorgensen, 2012; Poppelaars and Scholten, 2008; Scholten,
2013; Zincone et al., 2011). It is a level-specific study of cities’ capacities and
limitations providing the groundwork for comparisons of the local level with
other levels of government. In line with the Special Issue’s concept article, it
acknowledges the growing importance of local governance in the area of immigrant
policies and it recognizes the effects that other levels can have on local policies by
way of political discourses, legal frameworks and funding. As such, local policies
are never entirely independent from regional, national or international influences.
Methodology
During my 5–8 week-long stays in Amsterdam, Antwerp and Leeds I was a full-
time participant observer of everyday activities in municipal diversity departments3
and conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 officers working on the imple-
mentation of these policies (in the following referred to as ‘diversity officers’4).
This allowed me to gain an in-depth insight into the implementation of local diver-
sity policies. This article is based on participant observations and interviews within
these departments, and on a content analysis of diversity policies in Amsterdam,
Schiller
269
Antwerp, and Leeds. I also draw on internal documents, such as yearly work
programmes of these departments, which I was able to access during my fieldwork.
The increasing role of cities in the multi-level governance
of immigration
Cities today operate in a multi-level governance framework (Hepburn and Zapata-
Barrero, 2014; Poppelaars and Scholten, 2008; Zincone and Caponio, 2006).
They are informed, though to differing degrees, by regional, national and inter-
national laws and policies. In the case of the UK a strong legal framework for
equality is in place, which assigns statutory duties to local authorities. Amsterdam
receives funding from the national level, some of which is earmarked. In Antwerp
the diversity department is funded in part by the Flemish region and therefore has
to satisfy the conceptual framework of the regional level (Interview IP C1 181).
More recently, however, cities are also increasingly self-confident and self-reliant
in developing their own policies vis-a`-vis the national and regional levels (Schiller,
2015).5 Ongoing trends of decentralization and international exchanges between
cities in European networks of cities have their share in this development
(Jorgensen, 2012: 252). By joining the Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities
programme, Lyon was able to adopt a very different stance from the French
national context, as Downing (2015) has argued. Specific local trajectories or
national developments explain the divergence of local and national policy frames
in my case study cities. In the case of UK cities, the government coalition of
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats deliberately reduced the provision of equal-
ity guidelines and its control function for cities (Interviews D2 32, D3 110, 4 28, B6
78, B6 138). Leeds, as well as other cities, took this new window of opportunity to
define their own standards and concepts (DCLG, 2010; Interview D2 62).
Amsterdam has long cherished its image as the rebellious capital with a more
liberal outlook, which explains why officers perceive the city as operating largely
independently from the national level (Interview A14 255). And local officers in
Antwerp perceive the city as an innovator, which is well ahead of the regional level
(Gsir, 2009; Interview C7 136).
Both local and national levels often experience heated debates on immigrant
policies and a local issue can quickly gain national relevance as well as the other
way round. In my research I have chosen three cities where the notion of multi-
culturalism was contested on both local and national levels. Politicians subse-
quently avoided the term ‘multiculturalism’, erasing it from their vocabulary
(Interviews B1 506, B2 438, B6 29). National debates on the ‘crisis of multicultur-
alism’ were triggered by the riots in northern UK cities in 2001 and the London
bombings of 2005 (Eade et al., 2008), proclamations of a ‘failure of multicultural-
ism’ in the Netherlands by Pim Fortuyn, Paul Scheffer and Geert Wilders
(Entzinger, 2003; Penninx et al., 2005; Vasta, 2007), and the integration of nation-
alist forces in the Flemish government (Adam, 2011; Gsir, 2009; Motmans and
Cortier, 2009). They were compounded by distinct local events and pressures and
270
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(2)
some cities put so-called diversity policies in place. From the early 1990s
Amsterdam’s government was confronted with a public debate about the alleged
formation of an urban migrant underclass, leading to the introduction of a diver-
sity policy in 1999 (Vermeulen, 2008). Antwerp faced the increasing success and
landslide victory of the Flemish nationalist party ‘Vlaams Blok’ in the local
elections of 2000, putting the Social-Democratic government under pressure to
demonstrate a proactive and innovative approach to undermine...
To continue reading
Request your trial