Key note zapata barero icvc 2012

Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF) Universitat Pompeu Fabra www.upf.edu/gritim

Keynote presentation on

diversity management and political discourses: The “local turn”

by Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Professor of Political

Science, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona)

Framing speech and argument

• If the Europe of citizens has been the EU motto, defining its paradigm since Maastricht (1992), what it has shown is that EU citizens are basically urban citizens, and that the European movement of people is basically an urban phenomenon, rather than a State one.

• Combining territorial EU mobility and urban citizens, we can say that a new motto is needed for the coming years: a Europe of (diverse) cities. I will argue that this motto is most appropriate given the new migratory (so diversity) and local dynamics…this is what I refers as the local turn, the need of a European city framework of action, with two dimensions: multilevel governance and discourse/practice/opinion.

• A shift from Citizens to Cities….

• We are going from a State-centered framework to a more City-centered framework

• …but if cities/diversity is the nexus …it poses plenty of challenges, which need to be discussed in order to construct a European city framework of action. We are just at the beginning of the inclusion of this dynamics of cities in EU.

• The main purpose of my key-note is to give justifications legitimating this argument: “the local turn”


Structure

1. Framework: Overviewing current discursive context in Europe: what is new and what is old?

2. Premises: EU institutional overview. “Local turn”

3. Themed Issues 1: External dimension: Technical-administrative: multi-level governance

4. Themed Issues 2: Internal dimension: socio-political: (reactive) discourses, policies, public opinion.

5. Concluding remarks: “Europe of (diverse) cities” challenges in current decade 2010-20

1. FRAMEWORK: OVERVIEWING CURRENT DISCURSIVE CONTEXT IN EUROPE: WHAT IS NEW AND

WHAT IS OLD?


“National sustainability” discourse

• 'national interest‘ focused on arguments around security, welfare and identity, are the three driven categories of “the politics of discourse” (the what to say prevails to the what to do, so that discourse itself become a policy)

• This reactive discourse is anchored in arguments generated by traditions (tradition first, neo-conservatism, ideological racism) and emotions (citizens first, neo-populistm, populist racism)

• Interplay of the politics of discourse nurtured by conservatism and populism cover all the electoral spectrum. Particularly true at local level.

Diagnosis: what is new? What is old?

Is not new...

• That there are local political parties with anti-immigrant and xenophobic discourses... is not new

• That some of these political parties have penetred into the political system by local channels and with democratic means, and play, in some countries, a crucial role as real power alternatives... is also not new

• That there is a populist wave in most of the traditional local political parties when speaking on immigration, due to the difficulty of managing politically the link between immigration/negative public opinion.... is also not new

What is new?...Local Governments become new actors

• The behaviour of local governments in incorporating

anti-immigrants measures into their strategic actions of managing diversity

• The fact of using legal means to manage diversity...and these legal means are directly related to national protection and raise the debate about the limits of diversity (the law of Shador in France, and now the recent debate on Burka, the debate to ban legally minarets on Muslim worship centres in Swiss)...all these conflicts have a local origin

PREMISES: EU OVERVIEW. THE “LOCAL TURN”.

Linking local/diversity


European discourse framework

• Institutional discourse: The European institutions have shown a growing interest local/diversity dynamics, at least in discourse there is a recognition and a will to promote dialogue on migration between local authorities, and with EU

• Academic research: rising interest for local-level migration and integration policies. Some case /comparative studies,

• The EU is also considering this ‘local turn’ in last documents. The city/diversity nexus is in EU agenda. Time to strengthen and promote EU-Cities relationship.

• But…Why cities? Why this local turn now? Why this cities/diversity nexus is becoming important? … at least three main reasons…

Reason 1. From inside: Triple Pressure of cities : Citizens public opinion, Conflicts diversity-related requesting immediate policy answers, and electoral system that press city governments through populist and neo-conservative discourses

Reason 2.From outside: cities are the main areas where conflicts are identified, but they have problems of competencies to manage them. This intergovernmental problem is growing and become itself a structural problem, so that the only alternative is to play “enfant terrible”, becoming active agent drawing their own key-questions/answer to challenges and so posing problems of policy-coherence between levels of government, and among cities.

Reason 3. State/local discrepancy: who does and who decides dichotomy. policy statements calling for an increased role of local processes and the formulation and implementation of these policies, yet eminently national level.

• local governments are shifting from a passive to an active role, not in the sense to implement and develop policies, but politically because they are a source of innovation and of new frameworks of relationship with other levels of government.

• From the multilevel governance perspective, the problem is not the transition from passivity to activity, but rather that this is done in an uncoordinated manner, leading to inconsistency, to provide feedback to neo-populism and neo-conservatism In fact there are at least three main causal factors explaining why this “local move” needs an EU attention

1) Economic /Financial Crisis

2) Growing neo-populism and neo-conservatism

3) Limitation of most National/State governments economical funds for local authorities

Some issues

• equality/rights: The accommodation of diversity that implies the presence of immigrants cannot depend on a "sovereign" municipal. We cannot allow that the dignity of immigrants be in the hands of local governments that do what they can because they do not receive government support

• Democratic machinery: This “growing speculation” of municipal diversity management, can easily be instrumentalised by local political parties, and nurture neo-populist discourse, that, as the financial speculator, acts without a public interest of equality.

Declaration EUROPEAN MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON INTEGRATION (ZARAGOZA,

15 and 16 APRIL 2010)

• “Considering that cities and their districts are privileged areas to foster intercultural dialogue and promote cultural diversity and social cohesion, it is important for local governments to develop and obtain capacities to better manage diversity and combat racism, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination. For that purpose, they should aim to develop tools that help them to design public policies adapted to the diverse needs of the population. In this context, it is necessary to take into account the spatial dimensions of integration challenges, such as segregated neighbourhoods. In order to fight inequality, it is necessary to invest in districts with a high immigrant concentration”

• To incorporate integration issues in all relevant policy areas guaranteeing appropriate cooperation and coordination between different levels of government and public administration (European, national, regional and local) is essential. Mainstreaming integration is important in order to develop inclusive policies that should provide for specific measures whenever necessary and feasible.

THEMED ISSUES 1: TECHNICAL-ADMINISTRATIVES: MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE


This “EU local turn” can contribute to best understanding:

1) why and how cities behave differently to same challenges immigration diversity related, and

2) why/how this behavior can also politicize immigration and affect the relationship with other level of governments and with their own local diverse society.

External/internal dimensions

• Externally following EU multi-level governance and policies: how cities play a prominent role in diversity governance, and what are the key-issues on multilevel governance related to coordination, cooperation and intergovernamental relations, and

• Internally with the local diverse societies through diversity policies and intercultural strategies.


Vertical/horizontal dimension

• ‘vertical’ dimension: relations between cities and higher levels of government: either regional, state or EU.

• horizontal’ dimension among cities. Level-specific studies, such as comparative studies of cities (preferably in different countries) and their policies in various migration (borders, reception, admission, citizenship issues), diversity (religion, cultural, urban/education concentration) and integration issues (housing, education, work, social service and welfare).

• Bringing together work on the vertical and horizontal dimension will contribute to a better theoretical understanding of the local turn in migrant integration policies and academics.

THEMED ISSUES 2: SOCIO-POLITICAL: DISCOURSES,

POLICIES, PUBLIC OPINION


• Diversity management: legal, not political: Govenments-agents. speeches and policy initiatives that seek regulate dynamic diversity in the public sphere. The fact that governments are beginning to use legal rather than policy means. Why use legal means? Why are policy means not thought sufficient? Why use legal means for protection rather than innovation, given the advantages of diversity?

• Limiting diversity: Who watches the watchers? We are now in a “discursive laissez faire", in which it seems that anything goes in discourse and practice, with legal limits only existing against the promotion of physical violence. Who limits reactive discourse?

• Can we move away from a national sustainability approach? rhetoric of “national sustainability”, EU Stockholm programme (a “Europe that protects”), characterised by economic crisis, a factor contributing to the rise of negative public opinion. We are witnessing a re-nationalisation of citizenship, which is highly reactive. Why do we have this citizenship policy rhetoric here (Europe) and now (within the crisis of multicultural policy approaches)? Can we envisage any moral, political or legal limits to these restrictions on diversity?

CONCLUDING REMARKS: EUROPE OF (DIVERSE) CITIES” CHALLENGES IN CURRENT DECADE 2010-20


• Key question 1 : policy coherence and local borders: how to coordinate local government and policies to avoid the creation of local borders?

• Key-Question 2: How can we reduce the gap between Discourse and Policies?

• Key-Question 3: How can we define diversity policies in terms of indicators of governance?

• Key-Question 4: How to deal with the tradition and diversity nexus, and avoid its potential racism?

• Key-question 5: how to combine diversity policies with cohesion and development?

•


Ricard ZAPATA-BARRERO ([email protected])

Departament de Ciències Polítiques i

Socials Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona)

Grup de Recerca

Interdisciplinari

sobre Immigració www.upf.edu/gritim

http://dcpis.upf.edu/~ricard-zapata/

http://www.upf.edu/gritim




Date post:	19-Jun-2015
Category:	News & Politics
Upload:	sapience
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

Key note zapata barero icvc 2012

News & Politics