Migrant
integration in
Rotterdam
compared to
Antwerp: a
first
exploration of
data
Author: Josephien de Kraker
S1198262
The Hague, 7th of August
2016
Public Administration
International and European
Governance
Leiden University
Supervisor: Prof. J.J.C.
Voorhoeve
Second reader: Prof. Dr. A.
Timmermans
2
Management Summary
The member states of the European Union have a common immigration and asylum policy. This means that all the member states accept each other’s rules regarding migrants who are coming from outside the European Union. While immigration and asylum is regulated on European level, this is not the case for integration policies. The different member states of the European Union do work together, but there is no common integration policy on the European level. Now that the number of people entering from outside the European Union is rising due to, among other things, the war in Syria and great unrest in several other Islamic and African states, the immigration question is becoming more important. This also makes the integration question rise in importance, which is also the reason for writing this thesis.
This thesis focuses on the integration policies of the two largest harbour cities of the European Union, namely Rotterdam and Antwerp. The central question is the effectiveness of the
different integration policies. To make integration measurable there is made use of the different dimensions of integration, better known as the structural dimension, the cultural dimension and the social dimension. A couple of variables were used to measure the
effectiveness of the different dimensions. During the analysis it became clear that one city is more effective in one dimension and the other in another dimension. Since the policy changed during the last years in Rotterdam it is hard to say what the results of these changes are. It is clear that both cities still live with the legacy of the past when both cities did not invest much in migrants. Rotterdam started earlier with a structured integration policy than Antwerp did and this is visible in the results over time. The city of Rotterdam has been more effective in the structural dimension of integration. Antwerp started investing in migrants later, but it continues its investments with individual guidance among other things. This is not the case for Rotterdam, since it is more focussed on self-reliance of the migrants.
The investments of the city of Antwerp become clear in the social dimension of integration: Antwerp encourages non-western foreigners to get in contact with the native population in different ways.
Lastly, the cultural dimension is hard to measure due to the lack of comparable data. The overall effectiveness is higher in Rotterdam, but due to the ongoing investments of Antwerp in migrants this difference could decrease in the near future.
3
Foreword
After graduating from the Hague University of Applied Science and with my premaster already in the pocket, I started my so called gap year. I continued working at TNS NIPO for another half a year and started my English courses to prepare myself the best I could for the master I would start in 2015. Also I became a board member of the Dutch Red Cross for the district South-Holland South. This year has given me a lot of great experiences and gave me the time to process everything of the past four years.
However, I would not be me if my gap year was not full of new challenges. I enjoyed that year and learned a lot about what I wanted and about myself. In February I stopped working because I wanted to focus on my English study and the Red Cross. This was not always easy, because I lost the daily rhythm that I had for about two and a half years.
I could not have been happier when it finally was September 2015. This year was going the be my last chapter as a student and I was determined to make the most out of it. I was not only starting with my master but also with the extra programme of the Honours Academy which is a part of Leiden University. Broadening my knowledge about leadership and combining that with the practical side was exactly what I wanted. I still could not let go of doing different things at the same time and especially doing something practical outside my master studies. I enjoyed the courses, especially the ones in the second semester and learned a lot from all the great professors. Still I did not know what subject I should choose for my master thesis. Then I came across the capstone on migration which is supervised by Professor Voorhoeve and his assistant Vasilis. I did know that I found the questions regarding integration policies very interesting and important in the light of the refugee crisis and the further Europeanization. During the first capstone meeting Professor Voorhoeve and Vasilis helped me in limiting down this subject to a comparison between two harbour cities. Even though a lot of time passed by, I was determined to finish my master within one year.
I have worked with great pleasure at this very interesting topic. Hopefully it can be beneficial to both science and society. With this thesis I want to show that if we do not learn from our mistakes from the past we are bound to live through it again. Lastly I want to thank everyone who played a role during this exciting year which was full of big changes and learning experiences. I wish all of you, who takes the time to read my thesis, a lot of reading pleasure.
4
Index
Management Summary ... 2
Foreword ... 3
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1 The goal of the research ... 8
1.2 Main and sub questions ... 9
1.3 Reading guide ... 9
1.4 Public Administration relevance ... 10
2. Literature review ... 10
2.1 Integration ... 10
2.2 Dimensions of integration ... 11
2.3 Integration models ... 12
2.4 Evolution and current situation in Rotterdam ... 14
2.4.1 The change of model in the Netherlands, so also in Rotterdam ... 16
2.5 Evolution and current situation in Antwerp ... 17
2.5.1 The change of model in the Flanders, so also in Antwerp ... 20
2.6 Effectiveness ... 20
3. Theoretical Framework ... 21
3.1 Differences in the integration policies ... 21
3.2 Goals of the policies ... 22
3.3 Integration ... 22 3.4 Measuring effectiveness ... 23 3.4.1 Structural integration ... 23 3.4.2 Cultural integration ... 24 3.4.3 Social integration ... 24 3.4.4 Overall effectiveness ... 24
4. Research design and methods ... 25
4.1 Type of research ... 25
4.2 Theoretical model and causal mechanisms ... 26
4.3 Key concepts and operationalization... 28
4.4 Measurements and data resources ... 29
4.5 Research approach and design ... 30
5
5. Analysis... 33
5.1 Analysis structural integration ... 33
5.1.1 Hard data on work rates in both cities ... 33
5.1.2 Hard data on educational levels in both cities ... 39
5.1.3 Soft data on work rates in both cities ... 43
5.1.4 Soft data on educational levels in both cities ... 44
5.2 Analysis cultural integration ... 46
5.2.1 Hard data on crime rates in both cities ... 47
5.2.2 Soft data on crime rates in both cities ... 50
5.3 Analysis social integration ... 53
5.3.1 Hard data on local elections in both cities ... 54
5.3.2 Soft data on social integration in both cities ... 56
5.4 Overall effectiveness ... 59
6. Conclusion and recommendations ... 60
6.1 Conclusion structural integration ... 62
6.2 Conclusion social integration ... 64
6.3 Conclusion cultural integration ... 65
6.4 Conclusion main assumption ... 66
6.5 Limitations of the research ... 66
6.6 Suggestions for further research ... 67
6.7 Recommendations... 68
Annex: Questionnaire and transcripts ... 69
Questionnaire ... 69
Transcript interview Rotterdam ... 75
Transcript duo interview Antwerp ... 75
6
1. Introduction
Integration policy is a part of migration. The integration policies of a country state the rules for people who migrate to a certain country and want to stay there. Such policies are set by the host nations. The members of the European Union have a common immigration and asylum policy, but not a common integration policy. Since citizens of the European Union can move freely throughout the whole European Union along with goods, services and capital, the European Union was forced to address the issue of the movement of people across the external borders of the European Union (Hix and Hoyland: 282).
The member states started a common migration and asylum policy in 1986. This was done outside the framework of the European Union treaties in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Immigration (AWGI), founded by the interior ministers. The outcome of this working group was the Dublin Convention on Asylum in 1990 and the External Frontiers Convention in 1991. These were intergovernmental agreements, because they were initiated and agreed upon by the member states themselves and not by another European institution (Hix and Hoyland: 282).
The Dublin convention is in place to prevent that asylum seekers apply multiple times in different member states. By mutual recognition of the asylum regulations of the different member states and stipulating that asylum applications should be handled by the country in which the asylum seeker first enters the European Union, countries try to prevent asylum shopping. This makes the country where the asylum seeker first arrives responsible for this person (Hix and Hoyland: 282-283).
The External Frontiers Convention is about the abolishment of the regulation for third-country nationals, who stay legally in one member state, to obtain another visa to travel to another European Union member state. This convention is less important for the topic of this thesis. The conventions were agreed upon but not all the European Union members transposed them into national legislation. This was solved by the Maastricht Treaty which was signed on February the seventh 1992, which brought all the work of the AWGI into the framework of the European Union. This became the third pillar of the European Union. Since then these conventions have been a part of the framework of the EU, but the conventions remain intergovernmental.
7 The AWGI became a subcommittee of the EU Council of Ministers, but the decisions were still made by unanimity and there was no role for other European institutions like the Commission, the Parliament or the Court (Hix and Hoyland: 283-284).
The Treaty of Amsterdam which was signed on October the second 1997, broke with this intergovernmental framework and made asylum and immigration policies an integral part of the EU treaty. The greatest change in this policy area was the Lisbon Treaty which was signed on December thirteenth 2007. This treaty made it possible that all the aspects of the European Union asylum and immigration policy can be agreed upon by qualified majority voting and with the ordinary legislative procedure. This means that the Commission, the Parliament and the Court also have a say in this policy area (Hix and Hoyland: 284).
This shows that the European Union has increased its power in this policy area. It is also discussing more and more to establish a common immigration policy, but this is still in the starting phase. Immigration policy is nowadays one of the most active areas of European Union policy- making. There are however, still a lot of domestic aspects, which are subject to national rules. Integration policies of the member states are still in their domestic jurisdiction (Hix and Hoyland: 284-285).
Also in this area the European Union is trying to increase its power. There is no common policy on integration, but that does not mean that there is no cooperation between the different European member states. Cooperation regarding the integration of third country nationals is done by a soft mode of coordination. The results of this cooperation are documented in EU Handbook on Integration for Policy-Makers and Practitioners which is published by the Commission every few years. It is hard to make stronger EU legislation in this area, because of the resistance of member states to accept obligations and comply with the EU rules. This policy area is still in the stage of cooperation instead of common policy (Lavenex, 2015: 382-383).
The immigration pressure is rising since the Arab Spring, which started on December the eighteenth 2010, and with the rapid rise of the number of migrants and refugees since 2010. The number of people that flee to the European Union has increased dramatically. In
Germany 476,620 asylum applications were registered in 2015, representing 34.2 percent of the total applications in the European Union. In the Netherlands there were 44,970 asylum applications in 2015, representing about 3.2 percent of the total applications.
8 In Belgium the number of asylum applications in 2015 is comparable with the Netherlands, because there were 44,760 asylum applications in 2015 (Migration Policy Institute, 2015). The number of people that are entering the European Union is rising and that is one of the reasons why the importance of integration policy is also rising.
The negative sentiments towards refugees are increasing in several countries due to different incidents and political narratives. In a recent study of Ipsos, which was carried out in twenty-four different countries, it was found that 50 percent of all citizens think that there are too many immigrants in their country. In Belgium this is 61 percent. Also Belgian citizens are pretty negative about the impact; 58 percent says that immigration is causing their country to change in ways they do not like (Ipsos, 2015).
The Netherlands was not a part of this study, but in another study the Dutch citizens were also not that positive in comparison to other European Union countries (NOS, 2015). An important aspect of these sentiments is the idea that immigrants and refugees do not integrate well in the host country and form “foreign” groups which change society in many ways. This aspect makes the integration policies of EU member states an important subject. This also applies to the effectiveness of these integration policies.
As the Netherlands and Belgium do not differ that much in the sentiments about migrants in general, and because these countries are comparable in other ways as well, it is possible to conduct a comparison of integration policies, as put in practice by large cities.
To limit the large subject of cities, the research focuses on the integration policy of the city of Rotterdam in comparison to the integration policy of the city of Antwerp. These two cities are comparable in many ways. They are Dutch speaking cities, and large harbour cities.
The research questions will be: How effective is the integration policy of Antwerp in comparison to the integration policy of Rotterdam? How can differences be explained and what do they tell us about integration policies in general?
1.1 The goal of the research
The importance of integration policy is rising, due to different external immigration pressures. It is important to know which kind of integration policy is effective. As the European Union is trying to increase its power in this policy area, it is important to know the strengths and
9 By comparing different integration policies it becomes possible to learn from the past because the amount of migrants who are coming to the Netherlands and Belgium is constantly rising and that makes it important that the same mistakes are not being made again. As all
integration policies of the EU member states are too much for a thesis, and as there are too many variables, it is limited to the comparison of two cases.
1.2 Main and sub questions
The main question: “How effective is the integration policy of Antwerp in comparison to the integration policy of Rotterdam? How can differences be explained and what do they tell us about integration policies in general?”
The sub questions are:
1. What are the integration policies of Antwerp and Rotterdam and what are the policy differences?
2. How effective is the integration policy of Antwerp in comparison to the integration policy of Rotterdam?
3. How effective are the integration policies of both cities in the light of the theory about effectiveness?
4. How can the differences in outcomes be explained?
1.3 Reading guide
First the relevance of the research for Public Administration will be explained. In chapter two, the literature review, the current situation in Antwerp and Rotterdam concerning integration will be presented, this is the answer to the first question of the thesis. The other subjects that will be discussed in this chapter are how the integration policies are agreed upon, what the content is and how it is implemented.
In chapter three the theory that will be used for this research is presented. This will mostly be theory about the effectiveness of policy: what the determinants of effective policy are and how these can be measured for the purpose of this research.
In chapter four the design of the research will be explained and how the data was collected. In this chapter different hypotheses will be presented. This is followed by the analysis in chapter five, in which the available data is presented. This chapter is divided into analysis of hard data and the analysis of soft data.
10 In chapter six the hypotheses will be discussed again. In other words, an explanation will be given to which extent reality matches with the theory. In this concluding chapter the results will be discussed and the hypotheses will be confirmed or disconfirmed. Also an explanation for the conformation or disconfirmation of the different hypotheses and some
recommendations will be presented.
1.4 Public Administration relevance
Rising immigration is a European question which the European policy-makers have to deal with. Immigrants who are not seasonal workers but remain in the host country, can integrate in the member state where they will be living. Most governments try to avoid that immigrants form separate communities and remain “strangers” as this causes tensions with the original population. Integration policies can aim at a pluriform, multicultural society, or at assimilation leading to complete integration and complete absorption into the majority society.
Up to this moment this is a domestic matter, but the European Union is trying to get more influence in this policy area. At this moment there is only a kind of soft coordination between the different member states.
This policy area and its effectiveness touches upon different aspects of Public Administration. As there are different actors which play a role, we can speak of a multi-level governance question. Which kind of policy strategy and content could be seen as more effective, and which elements would be worth considering when the European Union decides to form a common policy on integration policy? These questions make this subject relevant for Public Administration.
2. Literature review
In this chapter the literature about integration and effectiveness will be discussed.
2.1 Integration
From a macro perspective, the degree of integration is high when various groups in society connect well and have a similar socio-economic position, educational level, employment rate, social interaction and criminal rate. If all groups feel they are integral and respected parts of society, there is a high degree of integration in a society (Entzinger and Biezelveld, 2006: 6). Other scholars conceptualize integration as the process of gradual inclusion of new comers into the society of the host country (Remmennick, 2003: 25).
11 Integration does not mean that the migrants abandon their own values or cultural background, but that they will develop additional facets of identity which correspond with the host country. Unlike assimilation, where the migrant undergoes a total transformation to fit into the host country, integration means to learn to live in the host country based on tolerance of various values and traditions. The result of such pluriform integration is mostly a form of
multiculturalism (Remmennick, 2003: 26).
2.2 Dimensions of integration
Integration is still a word with a great meaning. To make integration tangible, the concept will be split up in different dimensions. The idea that integration has different dimensions comes originally from Granovetter (1973).
First there is the incidence dimension which includes frequency and intensity. Frequency stands for the number of contacts that a person has in the environment where he or she lives in. The intensity stands for how these contacts are, how much do they add to the sense of belonging and inclusion to the person in question. These two do not have to correlate with each other (Entzinger and Biezelveld, 2006: 6).
The second dimension is identification. This means that if a person identifies him or herself with someone, it is normal that the ties that these people have with each other are closer. These two dimensions do not have to correlate, but there is of course a relationship between them. Intense contact can lead to identification, but also the other way around, if a migrant cannot identify him or herself with the society it is likely that they will not develop intense or frequent contact with others (Entzinger and Biezelveld, 2006: 6). These dimensions can be seen as the social dimension of integration (Di Saint Pierre, Martinovic & De Vroome, 2015: 1837).
The other dimensions of integration are the structural dimension and the cultural dimension. These two dimensions arose with the insight that the governments had, that migrants would not give up their own identity and norms over time (Entzinger, 2014: 698-699).
The structural dimension of integration refers to institutional participation while the cultural dimension refers to value orientation and behaviour (Entzinger, 2014: 694). Including the social dimension of integration, there are now three dimensions of integration which can be measured.
12 Structural dimension
The structural dimension of integration measures to which extent the migrant is involved and participates in the economic life of the host country. There are different ways to measure the structural integration of the migrants. In the research of De Vroome and Van Tubergen (2014) structural integration was operationalized and measured by the employment status,
occupational level and the financial security of the migrants. In another research it was measured by educational level in addition to employment (Di Saint Pierre, Martinovic & De Vroome, 2015: 1839).
Cultural dimension
The cultural dimension measures to which extent the migrant adopts the values and norms of the host country and participates in the social environment (Di Saint Pierre, Martinovic & De Vroome, 2015: 1837). If the cultural norms, which the migrants have from their home
country, differ a lot from the norms of the host country, it is harder to achieve cultural integration.
The values which are important in western Europe, where Antwerp and Rotterdam are a part of, are for example gender equality and autonomy for people above eighteen (De Vroome and Van Tubergen, 2014: 50-51).
Social dimension
Lastly there is the social dimension of integration. This dimension can be seen as a
constriction of the dimensions incidence and identification (Entzinger and Biezelveld, 2006: 6). This means that the migrants are socially integrated when they participate in the social life of the host country (Di Saint Pierre, Martinovic & De Vroome, 2015: 1837-1838).
Parts of this dimension are the frequency and the intensity but also the level to which extent the migrants can identify themselves with the native population. A way to measure this is how much contact migrants have with people from the host country (Di Saint Pierre, Martinovic & De Vroome, 2015: 1845). Another possible measurement is to bring the dimensions of
Entzinger into the occasion. This would mean that also the sense of identification will play a role in determining to which extent migrants are socially integrated.
2.3 Integration models
As stated before, integration is a great word with a great meaning. To make it more tangible, the concept integration was split up in three different dimensions.
13 Besides the meaning of integration and these dimensions there are also different models from which different countries derive their policy. These models show how different countries look at the integration of migrants. In the literature they distinguish three types of different models for integration, better known as the multicultural model, the assimilationism model and the exclusionist model (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2006: 14).
Multicultural model
The first model is the multicultural model. This model is based on respect for the diversity of different cultures. It embraces the different identities that people have and even protects them. The Netherlands is one of the countries that uses this model (Carrera, 2006: 2). Within this model the government does not expect the migrants to give up their own culture and
traditions. This model stands for a multicultural society in which everybody lives peacefully together with their different backgrounds, cultures, traditions and religions.
Assimilationism model
The second model is the assimilationism model. This model is founded on equality, but this only counts for the people who fall under the ‘citizens’ of the country. To become a citizen it is important to completely integrate into society, which means that the migrants have to have the same traditional values as the rest of the community. In that way they have a common identity. France is an important example of a country which uses this model (Carrera, 2006: 2). Within this model it is important that the migrants abandon their own traditions and values because they have to become one with the native population. The people are only considered to be citizens when they conform themselves to the common values of the native population. Exclusionist model
The last model is the separation or exclusionist model. Countries which use this model are known for their restrictive immigration policies and are focused on the temporary character of the immigrants’ stay. Flanders is an example of a region that uses this model (Carrera, 2006: 2). Within this model it is pretty hard for a migrant to become a full member of the host country, because it is believed that they will not stay for a long time. Besides that the rules are though and this means a real effort for the migrants to meet those requirements.
However, things change over time due to external events and political and economic priorities. Different countries differ in their way of looking at migrants and the way they should integrate. The way of looking at integration also changes within a country over time.
14 The fact that different countries differ in their way of looking at integration is because of the difference in history and traditions. Besides that, all countries have different experiences with migration flows (Carrera, 2006: 2). Since the way of thinking about integration is different in all countries and also changes within countries it is believed that the models do not apply that clearly anymore to the different countries.
However, there are certain elements in the integration programmes which are a lot alike. To integrate within a country there are always language classes, courses about the norms and values of the host country including the cultural traditions and labour market orientation (Carrera, 2006: 3).
Below the current situation in Rotterdam is presented, which is the Dutch city and afterwards the situation in Antwerp, which is the city in Flanders. By looking at the evolvement of integration policy and their current situation it will become clear that both these cities do not completely belong to one certain model anymore.
2.4 Evolution and current situation in Rotterdam
In the Netherlands the national government sets the laws and rules for the integration and naturalization procedures. These rules have been subject to substantial change over time. In the Netherlands there is no longer a distinct integration policy for refugees since the ‘90s, but they receive the same treatment as migrants (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, 2014: 8). The most important change in the Dutch integration policy is the tight relation between meeting the strict integration criteria and the right to residence. Integration policy has become more and more a part of migration policy.
In 1998 the law ‘integration of newcomers’ was agreed upon. This law states that a newcomer has the responsibility to report to the executive board of a municipality which consists of the mayor and the members of the municipal executive. This executive board is responsible for conducting a naturalization research. This research has to clarify the distance that the specific newcomer has to the Dutch society, in other words the social disadvantage of the person in question. The research consisted of a test about the level of the Dutch language, the
knowledge about the Dutch society and the knowledge about the Dutch labour market (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, 2014: 39).
15 Afterwards the executive board of a municipality decided upon a naturalization programme which fits the person in question. This programme has the goal to increase the self-reliance of the newcomer (Tweede Kamer, 1998: 2-5).
Also from 1996 on the Netherland has a national integration policy. This first meant that the newcomers who received social assistance from the government were obligated to follow an integration course. However, after the law of 1998 entered into force, every newcomer
became obliged to follow that course. This did not only apply to migrants but also to refugees. As stated above, the municipalities were responsible for offering the integration courses. This all changed in 2007. From that year on the newcomer was not only obliged to follow certain courses to integrate into society, but also to pass the integration exam. This was a part of the new law of integration. Financial and residence sanctions were introduced. The target group for this integration law became bigger in comparison to the previous law
(VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, 2014: 39).
These changes made the policy role for the municipalities smaller. It became the
responsibility of the migrants themselves to make the necessary preparations to pass the integration exam. The migrants however, did not take the classes on their own. The
municipalities were too late with the tenders for the classes, which resulted in empty classes. To combat this problem the Dutch government implemented the so called “Deltaplan”. With this plan the government wanted to upgrade the quality of the integration programme
(VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, 2014: 39).
The government focussed on delivering integration programmes tailored to the individual needs, strengthening the connection between participation and integration and improving the competences of the executers of the integration programs (VROM, 2007: 9).
With this plan the municipalities got a bigger role again in the integration question. They got back the responsibility for delivering the integration programmes, and got the freedom to offer migrants, who are not a part of the target group of the national government, an
integration programme if the board of the municipality finds this necessary. For those offers they did not get funds from the national government. The municipalities had to fund these activities themselves, alongside the own contribution of the migrant (VROM, 2007: 15).
16 In 2013 the newcomers became even more responsible for their own integration, because from then on, the integration law changed again. So after becoming required to follow an integration course in 1998, and having to pass this course from 2007 onwards, the rules on integration became stricter again in 2013. Now the newcomers are entirely responsible for their own integration. This also means that the newcomer has to pay for this integration course.
This diminished the role of the municipalities again, because they do not have to call up the newcomers for the courses. Also the municipalities were not responsible anymore for the organization of the courses. The newcomers had to take own initiative to gain the knowledge that is needed for a good integration (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, 2014: 39).
It is obvious that the national government in the Netherlands sets the rules for the integration policies but the municipalities are responsible for the execution of it. In the Rotterdam
Program of the execution board of 2010-2014 it was stated that the local government will lead the people who are qualified for the language programme. They tend to focus on the people who work and young people with children who do not speak the language sufficiently. The language courses are accompanied by several practical exercises (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010: 14).
The local government of Rotterdam also stated that the level of the national integration exam is too low in their opinion to get a decent job. That is why Rotterdam is striving for a higher quality of the courses, so that the migrants also get to a higher level (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010: 14).
Due to the fact that the integration law changed several times in the past decade, which made the role of the municipality smaller, it is important to keep in mind that since then Rotterdam is not able anymore to set its own rules on integration. It can be concluded that the policies and the division of tasks changed many times in the Netherlands. This may hamper drawing clear conclusions on their effectiveness. We will return to this ‘warning’ later on.
2.4.1 The change of model in the Netherlands, so also in Rotterdam
It was only around the ‘60’s that the question of integration arose, because before that time it was believed that the migrants would adapt themselves to their host society. It was believed that this could take a couple of generations, but the eventual outcome would be that the migrants would be fully integrated. This was however not the case; the migrants did not abandon their own cultural roots (Entzinger and Biezeveld, 2006: 7).
17 In the Netherlands the integration policy had a lot of similarities with the exclusionist model before the 1980’s. This ended in the ‘80’s when also the Moluccans hijacked a train in which several people died. The hijacking can be seen as a critical juncture (Capoccia and Kelemen, 2007:342). This means that this event made it possible to alter the path of the integration policy as it was known then. It also made it almost impossible to ever return to an exclusionist model, which shows that integration policy is also path dependent.
After these incidents the Dutch government did no longer believe in the temporary character of migrants, and the policy was changed into the minority policy (Entzinger, 2016:696). The objective of this policy was integration with respect for the immigrant’s own identity. In that time the Netherlands moved more towards the multiculturalism model of integration. This is also the model in which the Netherlands and therefore also Rotterdam belong according to Carrera (2006).
This was during 2006; after that year a lot has happened in the Dutch integration policy. The different events, like the 9/11 attacks and the killing of Pim Fortuyn made it possible that the view on integration changed again. The fact that the migrants were not integrated that well was blamed on the migrants themselves. That is also why the new policy makes the migrants responsible for their own integration process. The dominant view can be better placed in the model of assimilationism (Entzinger, 2014: 698-699).
As we see for the Netherlands, and therefore also for Rotterdam, the policy does not fit into the multiculturalism model anymore. Also the assimilationism model does not completely fit because there are a lot of migrants in Rotterdam who are not staying temporarily. Besides that, most of the migrants still have their own traditions. These different factors make it harder to put a label on the Netherlands and Rotterdam of one single integration model.
2.5 Evolution and current situation in Antwerp
From 1993 onwards the ability to decide on integration policy is the responsibility of the different regions in Belgium: the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the French Community Commission.
The Flemish government made a policy document about integration for migrants for the years 2009 up to and including 2014. Integration is a first step for migrants to become a part of the Flemish society and not an end station, according to the government.
18 The main challenge for the government is to stimulate the migrants, the local governments and all the other organisations which play a part in the integration cycle, to take their responsibility seriously (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 8).
The number of migrants in Flanders was 20 percent in 2004. In the city of Antwerp it was 26 percent. During the time of that research the migrants had disadvantages on the labour market, in education and had a higher chance at becoming a part of the poorer community (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 14-16).
In the coalition agreement of the Flemish government of 2009, the coalition parties state that they want to invest in a society in which solidarity and ‘warmth’ prevail. The opportunities to develop as a person have to become larger in this kind of society, and the social connections between people have to increase. To make this possible, it is a condition that all the citizens of Flanders speak the same language and that the people tolerate each other (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 17).
With the Pact 2020 the Flemish government wants to achieve an ‘inclusive’ society. The responsibilities of the different layers of the government in this area were changed when the state was reformed. Some responsibilities are on federal level, while others are on regional level or on community level (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 18).
The communities are qualified to organize the integration of the people who live in the area. The federal level is responsible for the access of migrants to Belgian territory, the stay of those people, the settlement of the people and the removal. This means that the federal level has the exclusive power over migration, which makes effective policymaking pretty hard for Flanders (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 18).
The integration program of Flanders consists of a kind of training program in which the migrants receive individual guidance. The director of integration program is the so called reception office. The training consists of Dutch language classes, social orientation and a labour market orientation. The program is tailored to the needs of the individual.
It is mandatory for all the new comers to follow this primary integration program. The people who were already in Flanders before these rules were established do have the right to follow this program, but for them it is not obligatory (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 19).
19 Also education is important for the new comers; to make it easier for newcomers to follow advanced courses they already learn Dutch as a second language on a proper level in the primary integration program. As said before, the newcomers receive individual guidance throughout the whole primary program and all the administrative components get documented digitally by the integration organisation called ‘Kruispuntbank’.
The primary integration program starts at the reception office, which is the responsibility of the community level government. Different organisations lead the way to such offices. Also the primary program is mandatory, so to enforce these integration rules, there are
administrative penalties set in place for new comers who do not comply with the rules (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 24).
This also shows that the integration policy in Flanders is also becoming stricter in comparison to the past. As seen in the part about Rotterdam, the integration policy of the Netherlands has also changed a lot over the years. In Flanders the government is however still taking more responsibility in the facilitating aspect in comparison to the Netherlands (VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, 2014: 10).
After successfully finishing the primary integration program it is possible to enter the
secondary program. This program makes it also possible for professionals to learn more about their possibilities. The difference in the degree of difficulty of the primary and secondary program is one of the reasons that the number of people who apply for the secondary program is lower in comparison to the whole potential target group. This is also an issue that the government is working on, because the secondary integration program has to be the final step towards integration (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 25).
It is clear that the Federal government is responsible for the migration policy, which means that they are responsible for which people and how many of them enter and leave Belgium. The Flemish government is responsible for making the integration policy, but the city of Antwerp is responsible for the reception offices. This makes them also responsible for the integration courses.
The integration courses are completely free of charge for the new comers. This is done to make it possible for the new comers to integrate faster and find their way in society quicker (Inburgering Antwerpen, 2016).
20
2.5.1 The change of model in the Flanders, so also in Antwerp
The model that was initially applicable to Antwerp was the exclusionist model, which is characterized by its restrictive immigration policies and is focused on the temporary character of the stay of the migrant (Carrera, 2006: 2).
In Flanders and also in Antwerp, the temporary character of the migrant is abolished. As stated in the integration document of the Flemish government, they see integration as a step in becoming a part of society (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 8).
The migrants are responsible for their own integration, but the local government and other organizations which are also situated in the city of Antwerp, guide the way to the right institution. Beside this guidance, the integration courses are completely free of charge for the newcomers.
The newcomers do learn a lot about the values and the labour market which apply in Antwerp, but it is not the wish of the government to make the migrants totally abandon their own
cultural background. Besides that, the rules are equally strict in Antwerp as they are in Rotterdam. The great difference is that in Antwerp the migrants are still guided into the right direction by the authorities.
This makes it hard to say to which model the Flemish integration policy, which is also executed by the city of Antwerp, belongs to. Although it is not the intention to apply a model to the policy, it is clear that Flanders is abolishing the exclusionist model and is turning more towards the multicultural model. This is also clear in the integration document because it is made very explicit that the aim of the policy is to create a welcoming society in which everybody is included and accepted (Vlaamse Overheid, 2009: 17).
2.6 Effectiveness
Now that it is pretty clear what is meant by integration and how this can be linked to the cases of Rotterdam and Antwerp, it is needed to establish a common ground on what effectiveness is. In this thesis the effectiveness of the integration policies of Antwerp and Rotterdam will be assessed, which makes it important to identify what effectiveness exactly means.
To be able to measure the effectiveness of policies it is important to look at the input and the output, but also at the outcome. The outcome consists of effects or events that happen because of the policy. This can be a wanted effect or an unwanted effects (Verlet and Devos, 2010: 2).
21 Besides the outcome it is also important to keep the throughput in mind: this is the process with which the outcomes and output get realized. The outcomes are the most important to the citizens, because that is what they see as the final result. Effectiveness refers to the cause-effect relationship between the output and the outcome. If one looks at the cause-effectiveness of a policy one focuses on the effect that the policy has had and to which extent this corresponds with the initial policy goal (Verlet and Devos, 2010: 2).
Measuring the effectiveness of a policy is not as easy as it sounds, because the outcomes of a policy are not all outcomes that are realized by the authorities. This is also because the responsibilities for the policies are not always centralized.
Besides that it is important to keep in mind the relevant environmental factors, because it is possible that the effects that occur are not totally the effect of the policy but also the effect of the context in which the policy is executed (Verlet and Devos, 2010: 3).
To be able to measure effectiveness it is important to also have access to objective and hard indicators. Subjective indicators can be used as well, but it is important that they are
accompanied by the hard indicators (Verlet and Devos, 2010: 14).
This makes it clear that effectiveness is: ‘to what extent the policy outcomes correspond with the initial policy goals’. Not only in terms of goals, but also in terms of time. The hard thing about measuring this, is that not every effect can be linked to the policy, and many policy changes make it hard to attribute results to certain policies.
3. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter the most important differences between the integration policies of Antwerp and Rotterdam will be presented. Afterwards it will be explained how the effectiveness of the different integration policies will be measured.
3.1 Differences in the integration policies
In this thesis the effectiveness of the different integration policies in Antwerp and Rotterdam will be measured. The greatest difference between the two integration policies is that in Antwerp the migrants still receive individual guidance. This is guidance in the sense of leading the migrants to the right organisation to register for the right courses. In Rotterdam this guidance does no longer exist because of the national rule that the migrants are entirely responsible for their own integration route.
22 Besides that difference, there is also the difference in procedure for the migrants when they want to integrate. It is national policy in the Netherlands that the integration courses start in the country of origin (Rijksoverheid, 2014). While in Flanders, and also in Antwerp, it starts when the migrants register themselves in a municipality.
The last important difference is the costs of the integration courses. In the Netherlands, and therefore also in Rotterdam, migrants are obligated to pay for their own integration courses. Since the courses are mandatory, it is also mandatory to make these costs. To make it possible to pay for these courses, the migrants are able to borrow money from the Dutch government (DUO, 2015).
In Flanders, and therefore also in Antwerp, the government pays for the integration courses of the migrants. This is because they find it important that the migrants can participate;
participation of migrants is better for both the community and the migrant (Inburgering Antwerpen, 2016).
3.2 Goals of the policies
The goals of the integration policies of Antwerp and Rotterdam are pretty much the same. They both want to achieve a community in which all the people can live together. Besides living peacefully together, it is important that the migrants get familiar with western values. The integration courses in both cities are focused on mastering the Dutch language, but also on getting to know the society that they will be living in. A part of the course also involves labour market information. In this way both cities want to make it possible for the migrants to participate in their new society. This can be in the labour market but this can also be in further education.
Now that it is totally clear what the differences are in the two policies and what the policy aim is, we can establish a framework to measure the effectiveness of these policies. Effectiveness in this research is constructed as to which extent the policy goals are being met by the policy. The aim of the policies are the same for both cities, which makes it possible to construct one framework to assess the effectiveness of both integration policies.
3.3 Integration
The concept integration has more than one meaning as stated in the literature review. In this thesis integration will be seen as the process of gradual inclusion of the newcomers into the society of the host country they are going to live in (Remmennick, 2003: 25).
23 With measuring the effectiveness of this, it will not be measured to which extent the migrants totally possess the traditions of the host country. The focus will be more on to which extent they comply with certain values and participate in the host city that they live in.
3.4 Measuring effectiveness
To measure the effectiveness, the different dimensions of integration, which are specified in the literature review, will be used.
In short, the dimensions are the structural dimension, the cultural dimension and the social dimension. These dimensions will be used because they include the different aims that the policies have. By measuring how well the different cities are doing on these dimensions of integration it will give a good overview of how effective the integration policy is.
3.4.1 Structural integration
The structural dimension of integration, which measures to which extent the migrant is involved and participates in the economic life of where they live, will be measured by the educational level that the migrants have. The more comparable the educational distribution in the different levels is for the non-western migrants to the native population, the more effective the integration policy is. The data that is available for this variable is the number of
enrolments for university studies.
Besides the educational level, the structural integration will also be measured by the employment rate of the non-western migrants in comparison to the employment rate of the native population.
When the distribution of non-western foreigners in the enrolment for a university study differ a lot from the distribution of the native population in a negative way then the integration is less effective.
The same goes for the employment rate: if a lower percentage of people with a non-western background work in percentages in comparison to the native population the policy can be seen as less effective. These measurements are comparable to the measurements which were used in the research of Di Saint Pierre, Martinovic and De Vroome (2015).
24
3.4.2 Cultural integration
The cultural dimension shows whether the migrants have adopted western values. It is common knowledge that the values that non-western migrants have from their home country differ a lot from the values that are a part of western countries, of which the cities Antwerp and Rotterdam are a part of. In other researches this dimension was manipulated with gender equality and individual autonomy (De Vroome and Van Tubergen, 2014: 50-51). In this research we will make use of crime rates.
It is a common value that criminal activities are not accepted. If the non-western migrants are more likely to be involved in criminal activities in one of the cities in comparison to the native population then the effectiveness of the integration policy will be lower in this dimension. This variable is a proxy variable because other information was not present. A higher crime rate could indicate a difference in the norms and values of these people. Also it could indicate a different upbringing.
3.4.3 Social integration
The social dimension is the dimension of integration in which it becomes clear to what extent the migrants are socially included in the community they live in.
The measurement which will be used for this dimension is how much the migrants participate socially. The interaction of migrants with the native population will be looked at. The
outcome could be that migrants have more, the same or less interaction within the community in comparison to the native population. If this is less than the native population then the policy can be seen as less effective in the social dimension.
Besides this variable, there will also be made use of another proxy variable namely the number of people who voted during the local elections. When the turn-out is lower in the group of non-western migrants in comparison to the native population this can indicate a less effective integration policy in the social dimension.
3.4.4 Overall effectiveness
When all the dimensions are measured it will become clear to which extent both policies are effective in accomplishing their initial goal of creating a society in which the migrants
participate in the same way as the native population. Besides that it is possible to see in which dimensions the different cities are doing a good job and in which dimensions there is still room for improvement. It is possible to draw lessons from the outcomes for the future.
25 This can make it possible for both the cities to better their policies, but it can also be a lesson for the European Union, since they want to increase their power in this policy field. For them it can be important to know which kinds of policies work and which do not.
4. Research design and methods
In this chapter the design of the research will be explained alongside with the used methods. Besides that, the data collection will have a place in this chapter as well. The chapter will start off with the type of research this thesis is. Afterwards the theoretical model and the causal mechanisms will be explained, in this part of the chapter the hypotheses will also be
discussed. Then the key concepts and the operationalization will be explained followed by the measurements and data sources. At last the research approach and design will be discussed, alongside with the population, reliability and validity.
4.1 Type of research
This research belongs to the positivist group of research and is therefore deductive. This is because this research focuses on the reality as it is. Besides that this thesis will focus on different phenomena and the links between them. By looking at the effectiveness of the different integration policies, there will be looked at phenomena like crime rates, education and so on to look what kind of links they have with the effectiveness of integration policies. These phenomena do not have a certain value, (Toskov, 2016: 24-28). Below you see a figure that gives an overview of the different types of research (Toskov, 2016: 30). It is established that this thesis is a positive research, therefore it will now be explained why the research is empirical.
Types of research
Normative Positive
Theoretical Empirical
26 Besides the fact that this is a positive research it falls under the sub branch ‘empirical’. This is because the research makes references to phenomena that exist in the real-life situation. Theory is still important part of the research, but besides that the research will involve different aspects of the real-life situation of the different cities (Toskov, 2016: 29-30). This research can be typified as descriptive and explanatory. It is descriptive because in this thesis the current situation in both cities, when it comes to the effectiveness of the integration policy, is explained. Not only the policy is described, but also the empirical evidence that was available (Toskov, 2016: 31-32).
Besides descriptive, it was also the goal of the research to explain what kind of parts of the policy causes the differences in reality. The different policies have different outcomes and this research tries to explain why this is the case (Toskov, 2016: 35-37).
4.2 Theoretical model and causal mechanisms
The effect of policy can be affected by multiple different things. As stated before the
integration policy in Antwerp does not let the migrants pay for their own integration courses. Besides that Antwerp guides the migrants towards the reception office. In Rotterdam this is not the case, the migrants have to find their own way and have to pay for their own
integration.
Since the integration policies in both cities changed a lot during the past couple of years and that has an effect on the data as well. In this research one main assumption and several hypotheses will be presented which are divided into the different dimensions of integration. Main assumption to be tested
Rotterdam regulated the integration according to the multicultural model from the ‘80’s until about 2013. In Flanders, and therefore in Antwerp, the integration was based on the
exclusionist model, and only around the ’90’s the integration route was institutionalized. Due to the fact that Rotterdam started earlier with integration and guided newcomers until 2013 it is likely to assume that the overall effectiveness over a longer period is higher in Rotterdam than in Antwerp.
So the assumption to be tested is: “Integration in Rotterdam was more successful than in Antwerp in the period under study.
27 Hypotheses according the dimensions of integration
Structural integration entails educational levels and work rates and will be divided into two hypotheses. According to different media, the structural integration has not been going all that well in the city of Antwerp.
As de Redactie (2015) writes about an interview with the mayor of Antwerp, Bart de Wever, the mayor points out that the structural integration is not going that well in Antwerp. This is due to the fact that they waited too long to develop integration policy for the incoming migrants.
That is one of the reasons why a lot of migrants do not work according to the mayor. Also the medium Filip de Winter stated in 2012 that the mass immigration towards Antwerp caused that the migrants do not do that well on the educational front.
In Rotterdam they had an integration policy for a longer time. This integration policy was first less focused on the responsibility of the migrants. That is why it would be likely that the structural integration over time in Rotterdam has been more effective than in Antwerp. Since Rotterdam started with regulated integration policies earlier than Antwerp according to the multicultural model it is likely to assume that:
Hypothesis 1: non-western migrants living in Antwerp have a lower employment rate in comparison to the non-western migrants in Rotterdam.
Hypothesis 2: the educational level of the non-western migrants is lower in Antwerp in comparison to Rotterdam.
The social integration is about to which extent the non-western migrants have contact with the native population. The city of Antwerp helps the migrants towards their integration courses and pays for these courses, by doing this the city tends to develop an inclusive community. In Rotterdam the migrants are responsible for their own integration; they do not receive any guidance towards the right institution. Besides that they have to pay for their integration courses. This policy is more focussed on self-reliance.
The city of Antwerp, when this city institutionalized the courses and changed more towards the multicultural model, has always guided and invested a lot into newcomers. Rotterdam for that instance changed more from the multicultural model towards the assimilation model and focuses more on the self-reliance of newcomers.
28 Hypothesis 3: The non-western foreigners living in Antwerp are more likely to have
interaction with the native population in comparison to the non-western foreigners livening in Rotterdam because Antwerp changed into a multicultural model and provided newcomers with guidance, free courses and projects to get in contact with the native population. The crime rates of non-western migrants in both cities will be used to measure the
effectiveness of the cultural integration. As stated by different media in the Netherlands, the migrants tend to be more involved in criminal activities than the native population is. This is especially the case in Rotterdam. Trouw (2009) stated that the migrant youth in Rotterdam is overrepresented in the criminal records. Besides that Trouw (1999) states that the illegal drugs trafficking is completely in the hands of people with a Moroccan
background. In Antwerp the media are more hesitant to state if certain migrants are more involved in criminal activities. However, the overall criminal activities made a spectacular drop in Antwerp in 2015 (GVA, 2016). This can indicate that also the number of non-western migrants that are involved in criminal activities is dropped. A high crime rate is assumed to indicate a low degree of solidarity with the host community, and greater differences in norms and values.
Since the integration policy of Rotterdam is going more towards the assimilation model, in which it believed that the newcomer has to accept the Dutch norms and live by them, it increases the chance that the non-western foreigners will remove themselves from society. Hypothesis 4: The non-western migrants tend to be less involved in criminal activities in Antwerp than in Rotterdam due to the fact that the integration policies in Rotterdam are focussed too much on adapting the values of migrants rather than those of the host society.
4.3 Key concepts and operationalization
The concepts that are being used for this research were firstly the three dimensions of integration. Under each dimension there are different concepts that are being linked to the dimensions. Below the dimensions with the different concepts are set out.
The structural dimension of integration is measured by education levels and employment rates of the non-western foreigners in both cities. Both these numbers are compared to the
29 Cultural integration is measured by the proxy variable of criminal activities of the
non-western citizens. This concept is being compared to the criminal activities of the native population.
The social dimension of integration is measured by social contact. For this dimension the integration of non-western citizens is assessed in comparison to the interaction that the native population has. Besides that this dimension is also measured by the proxy variable of local election turn-out. The turn-out of non-western migrants will be compared to the turn-out of the native population.
All of these concepts have different variables, this will be less, equal to or more in comparison to the native population. In this way the effectiveness can be assed. These measurements are the indicators of the dependent variables in this research. Their combination is a measure of the effectiveness of the integration policies of Antwerp and Rotterdam.
4.4 Measurements and data resources
To measure to which extent the different integration policies are effective in terms of
structural, cultural and social integration there will be looked at the different variables which are linked to the different dimensions of integration.
The variables that are linked to the structural dimension of integration are the educational level and the work rates of non-western migrants. This information is available for both cities. The information is about the number of students who are enrolled for classes on the university level. For Rotterdam this information comes from the Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS). This information is available up to and including 2015. Comparable information is available about education in Antwerp and comes from data ‘Dataloep publiek Vlaanderen is onderwijs en vorming’. This information is available from 2010 up to and including 2013.
The data of both variables are coming from secondary sources, but will also be complemented by the interviews, which is a primary source.
For the work rates, the information of Rotterdam is also available up to and including 2015. This is not the case in Antwerp. The information about the work rates of non-western migrants is only available for the years 2012 and 2013. This information comes from the ‘Kruispuntbank’ for 2012 and from the study service of the Flemish government for 2013.
30 The data from Rotterdam and Antwerp are both originating from secondary sources, but will both be strengthened and complemented by the interviews to make it more comparable.
The variable which is linked to social integration is the variable social participation. This is to which extent the non-western migrants participate and have interaction within the native community. Some interviews will be conducted with experts in this field in Rotterdam and Antwerp because this information cannot be drawn from databanks. In these interviews it is important to find out to which extent the non- western migrants interact within the native community. This data comes from a primary source. The data on the turn-out of the local elections is originating from secondary sources, but this data will be complemented with a primary source, namely the interviews.
Lastly the variable that is linked to the cultural dimension is crime rates of non-western migrants. This data is in both cities a bit less convincing. Rotterdam disclosed the number of unique suspects from the years 2013 up and to including 2015. This data is given by the municipality of Rotterdam. For Antwerp there is only a police report about the crime rates from 2001 up and to including 2011. Also the number of non-western migrants who are involved in crimes is not available in hard data. However, in the report they did interview some people who gave their view on which nationalities are more involved in different sorts of crime. To make this more comparable this is also an issue that is raised during the
interviews with the experts on integration in both cities.
All this data will be compared to the data of the native population, in this way it is possible to see in which city the non-western migrants have adapted themselves the most to the city they live in. Both secondary and primary sources are used for all the variables.
Since the policy goals are to create an inclusive community, the policy can be seen as effective when the non-western migrants’ behaviour and educational level et cetera are aligned with the behaviour of the native population in Rotterdam and Antwerp.
4.5 Research approach and design
This research is about looking at the effectiveness of different integration policies and to assess the differences in a good way there is made use of the most similar design (Toskov, 2016:262-263).
31 This is the case because there is made use of a small set of different explanatory variables, namely the structural, cultural and social dimension of integration to explain the effectiveness of integration policy. Other variables were made most similar as possible to make sure that other variables could not intervene that much. That is the reason why the city of Antwerp and Rotterdam were chosen.
The inhabitants of both cities speak the same language, namely Dutch. Besides that it are both big European harbour cities. The harbour of Rotterdam is the biggest European harbour and is followed by the harbour of Antwerp (Port of Rotterdam, 2015). Also the amount of citizens are almost the same, on January the first there lived 623,956 people in Rotterdam and 32.7 percent of these citizens are from non-western countries (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2015). In 2015 the city of Antwerp had 516,009 inhabitants of which 28.5 percent were citizens from non-western countries (Stad Antwerpen in cijfers, 2015).
This is also the most fitting model, because the research is deductive of nature. From theory and from real-life a small amount of hypotheses were formulated in two cases which are being tested (Toskov, 2016: 262-263). The data that is used for the testing of the hypotheses is mostly hard data, but is also completed with soft data in the form of interviews. This makes the research a combination of quantitative and qualitative research. The quantitative part can be seen as a meta analysis because there is made use of existing results of previous research or already known statistics. In the part of the analysis an overview of these results and statistics will be presented alongside the new insight derived from the interviews.
After finding out which dimension affects the effectiveness of the integration policy the most there are some recommendations formulated. These recommendations are not only applicable for the two cities but also for the European institutions due to the fact that they want to strengthen their power in this policy area.
Population
The population of a case is broader than the case on its own. It belongs to a way greater, more general set of events en phenomena (Toskov, 2016: 111-113). The total population for this research are most broadly speaking all the citizens in the European Union.
The target population or in other words, the sampling frame, is smaller than the total population of the European Union and consist of the non-western foreigners who live in a European country.
32 Since it is impossible to access the integration policies of all the European cities, two cases were selected. This way it is possible to compare them on different phenomena. The sample is the city of Antwerp and the city of Rotterdam. Antwerp lies in Belgium and Rotterdam in the Netherlands. This makes the non-western foreigners in these cities the sample to look at. The effectiveness of the integration policies within these cities is assessed by looking at different variables. This makes it unnecessary to take the whole population into account. Therefore there was no need to look at all the citizens of these cities, but only at the non-western foreigners of these cities. The non-non-western foreigners are the ones for who the integration policy is applicable. To access the effectiveness of the integration policy the data on the same variables of the native population is also used as a reference point, because otherwise the data does not really say anything about the effectiveness.
4.6 Reliability and validity
For a research to be valid it is important that there has been measured what the research intended to measure. To secure the validity in this thesis there has been made use of variables in the measurements of effectiveness that have been used in previous researches as well. Besides that, the hard data on both cities originate from reliable sources. All the sources are national reliable statistical organisations or study organisations of the local government. To make it even more valid and possible to compare the cities in a better way some interviews were conducted in both cities. By combining hard and soft data it is possible to make the best comparison as possible with the most accurate data available.
For a research to be reliable it has to be possible to redo the research and have the same findings. Since in this research there has been made use of hard data that is unchangeable it can be seen as reliable. The questions in the interviews were asked in a neutral way to make the interviews as reliable as. Also the questions that were asked in both cities are almost the same. Besides that, the experts were not given the intention that something was right or wrong and they were not pushed to a certain answer. The combination of hard and soft data also makes the research more reliable. If someone would redo this research the hard data will be the same and if the interviews are done in the same way the outcomes will not differ as well. The downside to the research is the fact that the hard data of the different cities are from different years and also have different significance.
