(…) we define mainstreaming of immigrant integration as the generic and inclusive adoption of immigrant integration priorities in generic policy domains. With its generic and inclusive approach the ideal-typical tool of mainstreaming claims to overcome the dilemma of reinforcing (ethnic) boundaries as typical of the multicultural approach and the problematic, stable ‘reference population’ in assimilationism.80
state Scholten and Van Breugel in their contribution Mainstreaming integration governance, hence understanding mainstreaming as a policy shift towards a generic and inclusive approach, which would mean the incorporation of immigrant integration policies into all policy fields – into the ‘mainstream’. Several scholars, among them Scholten and Van Breugel argue for mainstreaming immigrant integration governance as a fitting framework to deal with the increasing superdiverse societies and to overcome the ‘dilemma of recognition’ and argue for an ‘trend’ towards mainstreaming in migrant integration policies as a consequence of the backlash of multiculturalism and the so-called
‘assimilationist turn’ in European integration governments. The thesis at hand draws on the contributions by Scholten and Van Breugel, and aims to investigate through comparative case studies, whether mainstreaming is indeed a new trend in the governance of immigrant integration as described by Scholten and Van Breugel, or whether recent developments in the governance of immigrant integration in Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool contradict this described tendency. Furthermore, I aim to identify, if a shift towards mainstreaming can be identified, to identify what the local governances’
understandings of mainstreaming are. To engage with these research question how is mainstreaming - if at all - reflected in the integration governance of Gdańsk (PL), Hamburg (DE), and Liverpool (UK)? and how and why do the understandings of, and approaches to, immigrant integration governance differ, this chapter is dedicated to a literature review on mainstreaming, providing a definition, and conceptualization of mainstreaming, including key indicators for a shift towards mainstreaming immigrant integration, which serve as basis for the subsequent analysis.
The first part of this chapter will be dedicated to mainstreaming in the field of gender, where mainstreaming first emerged and has been applied for considerable time.
The theocratization of gender mainstreaming informs the analysis of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance by providing a general understanding of
80 Peter Scholten and Ilona Van Breugel, “Mainstreaming Integration Governance: New Trends in Migrant Integration Policies in Europe”, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 15.
26
mainstreaming and is evolvement, and by providing reasons why mainstreaming is applied in different policy areas, as well as on the aspired outcomes of mainstreaming, and by illustrating lessons learned from praxis. In the second part, I present an overview of mainstreaming as a policy instrument and strategy. In doing so,I illustrate how broad the ‘concept’ of mainstreaming is and how it is applied in various context. In the third part of this chapter, I will provide an overview of exciting literature in the field of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance and conceptualise mainstreaming in the context of immigrant integration governance, focusing on immigrant integration governance at the local level.
3.1. Gender Mainstreaming
To better understand mainstreaming in integration governance and to answer the RQ accordingly, it is crucial to show the roots of the concept, which is why the following theory has been added to this chapter.
To date, mainstreaming is primarily known from the fields of gender equality, integration of people with disabilities, and environmental protection, as well as poverty reduction and democracy and human rights.81 Whereby, the introduction of mainstreaming in EU gender equality policy contributed decisively to the stabilisation of mainstreaming as a policy instrument.82The term “mainstreaming” was coined first at the Nairobi International Women’s conference held in 1985, in reference to gender equality.83 Gender mainstreaming became further advance through the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in September 1995, which prioritised gender mainstreaming as global strategy to achieve gender equality84 and later in 1996 by the European Commission, through an investigative project into mainstreaming.85 In 1997, the ECOSOC Agreed Conclusions (1997/2) first established some important general principles for gender mainstreaming in its policy frameworks, referring to gender mainstreaming as:.
81 OECD, Mainstreaming Cross-cutting Issues: 7 Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews, (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2014), accessed 26 March 2022,
http://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/mainstreaming-cross-cutting-issues.htm.
82 Charlotte Halpern, Sophie Jacquot and Patrick Galès, “A Mainstreaming: Analysis of a Policy Instrument”. New Modes of Governance – Policy Brief #33, San Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, Summer 2008, 4
83 Christine Booth and Cinnamon Bennett, “Gender Mainstreaming in the European Union: Towards a New Conception and Practice of Equal Opportunities?“, European Journal of Women’s Studies 9, no. 4 (November 2002), 438.
84 Ibid., 438.
85 Ibid., 431.
27
(…) the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels.
It is a strategy for making women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.86
The policy framework of the ECOSOC, reflects an understanding of gender mainstreaming as a political process with the goal of achieving gender equality through the incorporation of a ‘gender perspective’ in all levels and all stages of policymaking, and moreover the involvement of multiple stakeholders across levels as well as between different organisations.87 Mainstreaming thus implies an overcoming of specific, targeted policies, directing policies at the entire society and “(…) making women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension (…)” 88. This refers back to the discussion on the ‘dilemma of recognition’ and the controversies in target group constructions for political decision-making. Thereby, it is questionable both, in the context of gender mainstreaming, but also for the analysis of the thesis at hand, if mainstreaming indeed can overcome the ‘dilemma of recognition’ and if a gender perspective – or for the thesis at hand, an immigrant perspective - can be incorporated into mainstream agendas, without overcoming the norms of traditional structures. Thus, questioning whether mainstreaming as strategy/ as policy tool indeed is capable to overcome the ‘women/men’ respectively ‘immigrant/non-immigrant’ dichotomy. Critical voices, such as Walby argue in the context of gender mainstreaming that “(...) gender mainstreaming is inevitably and essentially a contested process” as it encompasses two conflicting reference frames with ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘gender equality’.89 The dualism consists in the fact that new gender norms may conflict with and even contradict traditionally existing norms and therefore cannot simply be integrated into mainstream agendas. The question arises to what extent gender mainstreaming as a policy and strategy can combat structural inequalities, injustices, patriarchal structures and practices.
Nevertheless, in her later contribution The future of feminism, Walby advocates for gender mainstreaming as one of the most successful tools for ensuring that a gender perspective,
86 WOMEN 2000, “Gender mainstreaming. Extract from Report of the Economic and Social Council for 1997 (A/52/3, 18 September 1997), 2, accessed 29 July 2022, https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/GMS.PDF.
87 Peter Scholten, Elizabeth Collett, and Milica Petrovic, “Mainstreaming Migrant Integration?”, 286.
88 WOMEN 2000, “Gender mainstreaming”, 2.
89 Sylvia Walby, “Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice2, Social Politics:
International Studies in Gender, State & Society 12, no. 3 (8 November 2005), 322, doi: 10.1093/sp/jxi018.
28
and attention to the goal of gender equality are central to all activities in an organisation or state. Thereby, recommending to rather face the dilemma between mainstreaming and gender equality, as it is necessary for feminism to engage with the mainstream in order to be successful.90
Deriving from this conceptualization of mainstreaming in the context of gender, it is of interest to see how the identified key characteristics of mainstreaming (polycentric governance, shift towards generic governance), and strengths and weaknesses of mainstreaming are reflected in mainstreaming immigrant integration governance.
Moreover, it is of interest to take into account the contributions of Walby critically assessing gender mainstreaming and reflect upon the potential dualism in mainstreaming immigrant integration, questioning, to what extent an immigrant perspective can be incorporated into mainstream agendas, without overcoming the norms of traditional structures. Hence, questioning if mainstreaming as strategy, as policy tool indeed is capable to overcome the ‘immigrant/non-immigrant’ dichotomy.
3.2. Mainstreaming as policy instrument and strategy
Deriving from the fields of gender, mainstreaming has successively been applied to more policy fields, including disability, and environment, and latest to the field of immigrant integration. In terms of defining mainstreaming in a more general context, there is a wide variety of definitions, including understandings of mainstreaming as policy instrument, as (feminist) strategy, as practice, as well as process, depending on context and conceptualization. For the purpose of this thesis, I will focus on mainstreaming as tool and strategy in local policymaking, thus not further elaborating or evaluating the actual implementation and the outcomes of mainstreaming.
Halpern, Jacquot and Le Galès
(...) understand mainstreaming as both a process and instrument through which specific issues, such as environmental, gender or urban issues, are addressed horizontally and systematically incorporated at all stages of policymaking and the governance system.91
90 Heather McRobie, “Gender Mainstreaming: The Future of Feminism? or Feminism's Disappearing Act?,”
openDemocracy, 22 January 2012, accessed 28 July 2022,
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/gender-mainstreaming-future-of-feminism-or-feminisms-disappearing-act/.
91 Charlotte Halpern, Sophie Jacquot and Patrick Galès, “A Mainstreaming: Analysis of a Policy Instrument”, 2.
29
Hence, they focus on the function of mainstreaming as both a process and a policy instrument, highlighting the feature of mainstreaming as a shift from specific to general policies that involves all stages, and all sectors of governance to address cross-cutting issues, structural inequalities, and injustices, and to take advantage of possible trade-offs and potential synergies between individual policy areas. Halpern, Jacquot and Le Galès note that mainstreaming is a tool to make existing policy instruments more effective, and that it must be seen in the context of a process of rationalisation of European finances and policies and as a solution to conflicting priorities.92 “In that sense, mainstreaming can be considered as a highly innovative instrument, whose introduction took place when other stronger mechanisms of coordination have failed.”93 Nonetheless, it has been argued that mainstreaming is a soft, non-binding new mode of governance, has the potential to organise and orient policy change, as proven by gender mainstreaming.94
3.3. Mainstreaming immigrant integration governance
Only recently mainstreaming has been applied to the field of immigrant integration and it has been argued for a ‘trend’ towards mainstreaming in migrant integration policies as a consequence of the backlash of multiculturalism and the so-called ‘assimilationist turn’
in European integration governments. 95 A rethinking of policy approaches in the context of increasing superdiversity took place, “this revision of policy philosophies across Europe is referred to in terms of the ‘mainstreaming’ of immigrant integration policies into generic policies.”96 Several scholars, among them Scholten, Collett and Petrovic, identified that mainstreaming immigrant integration presents a promising opportunity for policymakers to address increasingly diverse needs, as mainstreamed approaches can more easily respond to needs, avoid long-term segregation and stigmatisation of immigrant groups, and public services system will adapt to better serve a diverse society.
In the context of immigrant integration governance, mainstreaming would entail incorporating the immigrant perspective into all policies, programs, and projects in order to achieve equality and target policies more effectively to all citizens. All agencies and organisations providing public services at all stages of government become responsible
92 Ibid., 2.
93 Ibid., 1.
94 Charlotte Halpern, Sophie Jacquot and Patrick Galès, “A Mainstreaming: Analysis of a Policy Instrument”, 3.
95 Peter Scholten, Elizabeth Collett, and Milica Petrovic, ‘Mainstreaming Migrant Integration?”, 284.
96 Ibid., 284.
30
for contributing to immigrant integration from a mainstreaming perspective and for adapting their activities to meet the needs of a diverse society.97
In the context of immigrant integration, mainstreaming was mentioned first by the Council of the European Union in 2004 as one of the eleven Common Basic Principles on Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU.98 Therein the Council of the European Union advocates for mainstreaming integration policies and measures “(...) in all relevant policy portfolios and levels of government and public services” to ensure that immigrant integration is a central focus of policy formulation and implementation. In addition, the statement on mainstreaming as common basic principle refers to the necessity of cooperation, coordination and communication between different governmental and non-governmental actors on immigrant integration issues in order to include that focus in all aspects of policy and life.99 Since the introduction of the term in the context of immigrant integration by the Council of Europe in 2004, mainstreaming has been emphasised further in the EU-context in A Common Agenda for Integration - Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union (European Commission, 2005), plus second (2007) and third (2010) version of the Handbook on Integration for Policy Makers and Practitioners.100 These reference in these EU documents underscore the theorized shift towards a mainstreaming approach in immigrant integration governance at the EU level.
3.3.1. Conceptualising mainstreaming immigrant integration governance Within my thesis, I will draw on the mainstreaming definition by Maan, van Breugel and Scholten understanding mainstreaming integration governance “(…) as a shift toward generic policies oriented at a pluralist society and involving poly-centric forms of governance.“101 Hence mainstreaming is understood as a policy tool to replace specific policies aimed at migrant/ethnic/cultural groups by generic, somewhat ‘group-blind’
measures – or rather by ‘proxy’ policies and measures – aimed at the entire diverse society
97 Ibid., 295.
98 Laura Westerveen and Ilke Adam, “Monitoring the Impact of Doing Nothing: New Trends in Immigrant Integration Policy”, Ethnicities 19, no. 1 (February 2019), 21, doi: 10.1177/1468796818785658.
99 Council of the European Union, “Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions of 19 November 2004”, (Council of Europe, 2004), accessed 14 April 2022,
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf.
100 Laura Westerveen and Ilke Adam, “Monitoring the Impact of Doing Nothing”, 21.
101 Ilona Van Breugel, Xandra Maan and Peter Scholten, “The politics of mainstreaming – Policy brief.
UPSTREAM Policy Brief Nr. 1. Conceptualizing Mainstreaming”, (2015), 1.
31
of a state, region or city.102 Mainstreaming as a strategy for making immigrants’ as well as non-immigrants’ concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres with the ultimate goal to achieve equality of all people living in a certain place. Based on this definition, three main features of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance can be derived: (1) a shift towards generic policies, (2) the orientation towards and addressing of a pluralist society, and (3) a shift towards polycentric governance, which includes the involvement of different levels of government and a variety of both governmental and non-governmental actors.
Shift towards generic policies
The discussion of a shift from specific policies targeted at migrants/ethnicities/cultures to generic policies also reflects the ‘dilemma of recognition’, questioning consequences of (non-) construction of target grouping, and whether more specific policies are appropriate to meet the needs of all, or whether general/mainstreamed policies are better suited to accommodate diversity and meet the needs of all equally.103 The dilemma of recognition, coined by De Zwart, is that the construction of a target group imposes a label on that group with implicit social meaning, which can lead to stigmatising effects and is therefore considered as undesirable in approaches to immigrant integration. On the other hand, mainstreamed policies are accused of lacking the resources to address specific needs and deal with specific problems or inequalities and are therefore not suited to meet the needs of the whole, diverse society.104 As Maan, Van Breugel and Scholten have argued
mainstreaming can be understood as a form of replacement when specific policies, aimed at migrant/ethnic/cultural groups are replaced by ‘proxies’, involving generic, colour-blind measures aimed at the entire population, while still addressing the same social problems.105
Replacement106* involves constructing the goals of redistributive policies in such a way that group differences are not emphasised or acknowledged, but redistribution in
102 Ibid., 6.
103 Ibid., 6.
104 Ibid., 6.
105 Xandra Maan, Ilona Van Breugel, Peter Scholten, “The Politics of Mainstreaming – A comparative analysis of migrant integration governance in Europe. UPSTREAM Comparative Report WP3”, (August 2015), 7.
* De Zwaart identifies three possible paths of responses to the ‘recognition dilemma’: (1) accommodation, which is associated with the multicultural policy paradigm, (2) denial, which speaks to the ideal-typical liberal solution and (3) replacement, a compromise in between.
32
favour of needs of specific groups is still possible.107 Put in practice, replacement could mean that a government promotes redistribution that benefits groups, but in doing so adopts its own social categories that are broader than the traditional categories that they seek to replace and overcome. These constructs are designed to prevent formal recognition of social distinctions while still allowing redistribution to benefit disadvantaged groups.108
Aside from the dilemma of recognition, it has been argued that the rise of increasingly superdiverse societies makes group-based targeting increasingly difficult and even impossible, which ties into this strand of argumentation for a shift towards mainstreaming in the field of immigrant integration.109
Orientation at and addressing of a pluralist, diverse society
In the model developed by Van Breugel, Maan, and Scholten in the UPSTREAM project to locate the mainstreaming of immigrant integration policies (see Figure 1), the first dimension consists of policy targeting with either specific or generic policies as discussed in the previous section, the second dimension refers to the understanding of cultural groups within immigrant integration governance. Thereby, the second dimension distinguishes between a monistic, static view of culture and cultural groups as distinct and conflicting, and a pluralistic view that advocates for a pluralistic, diverse society defined by diversity and the crossing and blurring of ethnic and cultural lines.110 “A key question here is whether a model sees a culture, either a minority or majority culture, as something absolute and static or as something dynamic and fluid”.111
Cultural perspectives
Monistic Pluralistic
Policy targeting Specific policies Differentialism Multiculturalism Generic policies Assimilationism Interculturalism
Figure 1: Model to situate the mainstreaming of immigrant integration policies by Van Breugel, Maan, and Scholten112
107 Frank De Zwart, “The Dilemma of Recognition”, 137.
108 Ibid., 140.
109 Van Breugel, Maan, Scholten, “UPSTREAM Policy Brief Nr. 1. Conceptualizing Mainstreaming”, 6.
110 Van Breugel, Maan, Scholten, “UPSTREAM Policy Brief Nr. 1. Conceptualizing Mainstreaming”, (2015), 3-4.
111 Ibid., 4.
112 Ibid, 4.
33
Differentialism, multiculturalism, assimilationism, and interculturalism are the four types of immigrant integration that can be defined along these two dimensions. Based on a literature review, a link between mainstreaming and interculturality is assumed, and it is expected that mainstreaming will be used mainly as a policy tool to achieve or accommodate interculturalism.113 The so-called ‘elective affinity’ between mainstreaming and interculturalism, as framed by Zapata-Barrero, will be outlined in greater detail in Section 2.3.2.
Shift towards polycentric governance
Also based on the argument that the increasing superdiversity of our societies require new approaches, as well as on the assumption that polycentric distribution of responsibilities offers more flexibility and effectiveness, mainstreaming advocates for a shift from state-centric forms of government to polystate-centric governance, or also referred to as multi-level governance [MLG].114 Moreover, as argued by Zapata-Barrero, the ‘local turn’ in immigrant integration policies per se produces poly-centric policymaking with its trend from a state-centred to a local-centred approach.115
Governance, as discussed in detail in chapter 1, refers to negotiation mechanisms for policy formulation and implementation that takes place at different levels of government and between governmental and non-governmental actors.116 Polycentric governance further emphasises the deconcentration and decentralisation of policy decisions and of responsibilities in the context of addressing immigrant integration.117 Thereby, deconcentration refers to the horizontal dimension of power-sharing including allocation between different governmental departments as well as between governmental and non-state actors. Whereas, decentralisation refers to the vertical dimension, the allocation of policy responsibilities between multiple levels of governance, particularly the local, national and EU dimension.118 Thus, mainstreaming immigrant integration governance means that the responsibility for integration policy is distributed across various levels of governance and among various stakeholders, opposed to a centric government form in which a central minister, a department or directorate is responsible
113 Ibid., 3-4.
114 Peter Scholten, Ilona Van Breugel, “Conceptualizing Mainstreaming”, 13.
115 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, “Mainstreaming and Interculturalism’s Elective Affinity”, 192.
116 Maria Schiller, “Conceiving governance”, 5.
117 Xandra Maan, Ilona Van Breugel, Peter Scholten, “UPSTREAM Comparative Report WP3”, 7.
118 Peter Scholten, Ilona Van Breugel, ‘Conceptualizing Mainstreaming’, 13.
34
for all integration policies.119 This ties into the literature on MLG theories, with the
“General understanding of MLG as a process of state authority dispersion across different levels of government and/or non-state actors”.120
3.3.2. The linkage between mainstreaming and interculturalism
Several scholars, among them Collett and Petrovic; Van Breugel, Maan, and Scholten;
and Zapata-Barrero, have argued for mainstreaming immigrant integration governance as an appropriate framework to deal with the increasing superdiverse societies, thereby linking mainstreaming to the concept of interculturalism.121
Zapata-Barrero argues for an ‘elective affinity’ between mainstreaming and interculturalism and advocates for a shift from a multicultural to an intercultural policy paradigm [ICP] in which mainstreaming plays a central role in migration-related diversity management, in particular at the local level. “Interculturalism provides answers for local concerns and this city-based origin is probably one of the factors justifying the adoption of mainstreaming policy strategies”.122 The local turn, therefore is inherently producing a shift towards poly-centric governance.123 Zapata-Barrero thereby understands mainstreaming as a distinctive feature to intercultural policy philosophy and defends the argument that mainstreaming “provides interculturalism with a powerful competitive policy tool, solving most of the concerns of policy makers with the multicultural approach”, highlighting this link by speaking of a Mainstreaming intercultural policy paradigm [MIc].124 MIc is thus a public policy philosophy that emphasizes the importance of fostering communication, interpersonal relationships, and interactions in all aspects of public life, as well as for all members of a diverse society, including nationals and non-nationals, thus tributing to both the core concept of interculturalism and its contact hypothesis and to the core concept of mainstreaming aiming at a diverse, pluralistic society through generic policies. Thus, mainstreaming is understood as one of the fundamental characteristics of interculturality, or in other words, mainstreaming is seen
119 Ibid., 13.
120 Tiziana Caponio, and Maren Borkert, M. (eds.), “The local dimension of migration policymaking”.
121 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, “Mainstreaming and Interculturalism’s Elective Affinity”, 192.
122 Ibid., 192.
123 Ibid, 192.
124 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, “Mainstreaming and Interculturalism’s ellective affinity”, 193.