Refugees playing the Housing Roulette in Germany

(1)

Master Thesis

Refugees playing the Housing

Roulette in Germany

The challenges of accommodating

asylum seekers in German municipalities: the case of Aachen

Deborah Almerge Rückert

Student nº: 2071290

Email: deborah.almerge@gmail.com Supervisor: Dr Kate Kirk

Second Reader: Dr. Antoaneta Dimitrova Words: 20.000 (excluding ref, tables, etc) Master: Crisis and Security Management Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs The Hague, 10th June 2018

(2)

(3)

2

Chapter 1. Introduction

The 21st century began with a proliferation of transboundary crisis, both new in their type and magnitude. This defiance demands a deeper understanding of how crises can and should be managed. Although crisis management plans and strategies tend to be designed and passed by the highest political authorities, the primary challenge, namely the implementation, is delegated to regional and local actors. The globalized world is in fact a “glocal” one (Robertson, 1995: 26), meaning that the local micro-level is regaining weight in the management of transboundary and global phenomena.

The last decade has brought the largest refugee crisis in Europe since the aftermath of the Second World War. The propagation of conflicts in the Middle East, especially the ongoing Syrian civil war and the emergence of the so-called Islamic State terror organization, forced millions of people to flee from their homes and engage in journeys of hardship and uncertainty towards Europe. The destination for hundreds of thousands of these asylum seekers –up to 500.000 only in 20161-, predominantly from North Africa, the Middle East and Balkans, was Germany.

In Germany, the municipalities are required to cover all the essential necessities of the asylum seekers, ranging from shelter to education and work opportunities. One of the most complex service to provide is housing. Social accommodations are expensive and limited, as well as subject of intense political debates, especially since the economic crisis of 2008. Several obstacles are, therefore, related with the implementation of refugee housing policies, extending from making exceptions to construction laws and regulations, to tensions arising from extreme right-winged protests and violent acts against refugee housing facilities.

For decades, scholars have researched migration and housing policies, as well as crisis management. Nonetheless, little has been written on the coalescence of both policies applied to refugees in a context of crisis management. Furthermore, the few studies that

(6)

5

have touched upon these matters, concentrated either on the national and federal/regional level of implementation, or looked into the micro-level implementation of other policies, as for example integration. This research seeks to contribute in filling this gap through an account of refugee housing policies implementation in German municipalities, where political tensions and high-level public policy reach the bureaucrat and the refugee. Nevertheless, this study is not a technical assessment of the efficiency of German municipal bureaucracy. Instead, this research builds on the premise that the practical aspects of policy usually differ significantly from what is foreseen theoretically in the policy documents (Eule, 2014: 2). Migration crises are a new aspect of crisis and security management; they represent both a practical and conceptual challenge. This thesis contributes to the field of housing and migration studies in connection with crisis management in Germany and Europe.

Moreover, the refugee crisis represents for Germany the most substantial challenge following the reunification of the country. Politicians and citizens are confronted with the struggle between the “moral obligation” of conceding asylum to people fleeing terror and war, as many Germans did during and after the Second World War, and the inherent prejudices and racism that are partially still present in German society. The highly sensitive and polemic situation has led to the rise of new extreme right-winged political parties, such as Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), along with civil demonstrations of racism, as for example the PEGIDA movement. There have even been violent incidents targeting refugee accommodations setting them deliberately on fire. Besides, the social housing policies in Germany have been under severe stress the last decade, due to the construction restrictions, economic shortcuts and the rapidly increasing number of people in need of this service.

Due to time and cost related limitations, all 11.0922 municipalities that compose the German nation-sate cannot be analyzed and studied. Consequently, I decided to pursue a single-case study of a specific municipality. Since the federal state of North Rhine Westphalia is the recipient of the highest ratio of refugees in Germany, I decided to choose

2_{Number retrieved from the official website of the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban} Affairs and Spatial Development

http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Raumbeobachtung/Raumabgrenzungen/Gemeinden/gemeinden_node .html

(7)

6

a municipality within this particular Bundesland. The municipality is Aachen, a small city bordering the Netherlands and Belgium that has received a high number of refugees when compared to others of its same size.

Once established the object of study, the central question that guides this research is: how is the German municipality of Aachen, in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia, responding to the delegation of the implementation of the provisions of housing asylum seekers from the national and federal level to the municipal one?

In order to answer the guiding question of this study, the following issues need to be addressed. First, how does the cooperation among the three main layers of government - the central national government of the Republic of Germany (die Bundesregierung), the federal state government (die Landesregierung), and the municipality (die Kommunalregierung) - function with regard to the refugee housing policies. For that purpose, three sub questions need to be answered: to what extent is each of the three levels responsible for the implementation of the housing provisions?; what is the share in the financing of the housing provisions of each level?, and how are the three levels interacting in this matter?

Secondly, the municipal discretion in implementing the housing provisions established by the national and federal level needs to be seized. The following sub questions are to be asked: what is the margin of discretion of municipalities in deciding the type, the standards and the provision of housing to asylum seekers?, and how are municipalities coping with the task?

Finally, the difficulties that street level bureaucrats are confronted with while applying the refugee housing policies need to be determined. Therefore, the case of Aachen will be used to illustrate these by interviewing municipality officials and social workers in communal housing facilities to establish: the reality of the implementation of national and federal provisions, the discretion and decided approach of the city, its response during the peak of the refugee crisis (2014-2015) until April 2018, the conditions and suitability of communal housing facilities, as well as the difficulties on the spot encountered by social workers being the last link of the chain.

(8)

7

The central hypothesis of this study is that the insufficient regional and national coordination generates a high level of disparity in the provision of housing among the municipalities. Moreover, this research aims to prove that communal housing facilities reinforce the control of public authorities while undermining the integration and the well being of the asylum seekers.

(9)

8

Chapter 2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Multi level governance in migration

Most states are organized along multiple layers of government, among them the German, making public policies a result of the interactions between the different levels of governance (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 1). Multilevel Governance (MLG) is a contested concept that has led to several academic discussions on its definition, application and accuracy (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 3). This concept is embedded in the increasing decentralization processes that succeeded the end of the Second World War and in the development of the European Union (Hackett, 2017: 341). Yet, the literature on this concept has only developed since the 1990s (Hackett, 2017: 341).

In this study, the MLG is understood as the governance in intergovernmental relations (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 5), referring to the “coordination among governmental institutions at different levels” (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 5). The coordination among these governmental levels is believed to encourage policy convergence and to address, in a coherent and solid manner, controversial migration policy issues (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017:7). Thus, MLG is a valid approach to question the central role played by national governments in policy implementation, and to expose the contributions of other governance levels (Bache and Flinders, 2004 and Gamble, 2004 in Hackett, 2017: 341).

As Caponio and Jones-Correa (2017) mention, there are three common elements in MLG. The first is the challenge of vertical, state-centered and formal hierarchies in the distribution of power and responsibilities relating to migration policies (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 129). The second element is the interdependence of those governmental levels to carry out the policy (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 12). The last characteristic is the bargaining and negotiating aspect of the interaction among levels (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 12).

(10)

9

Migration is a significant factor of social and political change steaming “from below” (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 6). The authors Ricard Zapata Barrero, Tiziana Caponio and Peter Scholten studied the deep linkages between MLG and the increasing relevance of local governance in dealing with migration policies (Zapata Barrero, Caponio, Scholtern; 2017: 241). Therefore, the focus on the municipal level in the housing policies for refugees seems plausible and logical.

In order to analyze the interactions and responsibilities among the three layers of government in refugee housing policies, namely the German national Government (die Bundesregierung), the federal state government (die Landesregierung), and the municipalities (die Kommunalregierung), Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks’ (2001) theory on multi-level governance will be used. Hooghe and Marks established two types of multi-level governance (Hooghe, Marks; 2001: 4). The first one refers to forms of authority dispersion among a limited number of jurisdictions that do not overlap in their competencies (Hooghe, Marks; 2001: 5). The legitimacy of this MLG form relies upon legal and institutional fixed norms (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017:3). The second type designates a form of governance where jurisdictions operate at diverse territorial levels, meaning that they are overlapping in their responsabilities (Hooghe, Marks; 2001: 7). The governance levels in this category are functionally specific (Hooghe, Marks; 2001: 7) and operate in a highly flexible and multilayered jurisdictional system (Hooghe, Marks; 2001: 7-8).

Furthermore, the multi-level governance approach will be used to understand the competitiveness among the German layers of government (Benz, 2007), which impacts on the cooperation and the behavioral patterns of the different regional actors, due to the fact that it appeals to their intrinsic motivations (Benz, 2007: 427). Policy competition can function also as incentive to increase effectiveness and even change regional governance (Benz, 2007: 428). According to Benz, this rivalry is favored by the smaller entities as it preserves their autonomy (Benz, 2007: 428). Notwithstanding, it could also lead to a lack of coordination among the layers and entities, resulting in high disparities in the accomplishment of their tasks.

(11)

10

2.2. Refugees and asylum seekers

First, some concepts need clarification due to the misleading use of the word “refugee” in media and, occasionally, in public policies. Many countries and sub national entities define the term refugee differently, resulting in significant disparities in legal terms as well as in policy making and implementation. Owen Parker and James Brasset (2005) studied in depth the concepts of refugee, migrant and asylum-seeker, in both their political and their ethical dimensions. As Parker and Brasset adduce, the 1951 UN Convention established that a refugee is an individual who “[o]wing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside his country of origin and is unable or, owing to such fear unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in Parker, Brasset; 2005: 234). Peter Nyers outlined the ethical dilemmas that underpin the humanitarian construction of the term refuge by acknowledging that the victimization silences the individual, consequently removing his political subjectivity and forcing him to become a political object (Nyers, 1999 in Parker, Brasset: 2005: 249).

The German nation-state defines refugees with the exact same definition forwarded by the 1951 UN Convention(§ 3 AsylG). In view of the fact that every foreign national on German soil is initially considered a migrant, an individual that desires to seek refuge in Germany has to apply for asylum at the Federal Agency for Migrants and Refugees – Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) in German-, in order to become an asylum seeker (BAMF; 2016: 2). Once the individual, who has applied for asylum, finalizes the procedure of verification and evaluation, he receives the official status of recognized refugee (BAMF; 2016: 2).

The label refugee is fundamental in shaping policy agendas and conceiving individuals as objects of a policy (Zetter 1991 in Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 27). According to Zetter (1991), labelling is a procedure that implies stereotyping, disaggregation, standardization and the delimitation of specific categories (Zetter, 1991: 44). The definition of these categories is especially important in the state institutions since it delimits the client groups and prescribes what they are entitled (Zetter, 1991: 44). The label refugee reinforces the public

(12)

11

authorities’ control over the individuals considered refugees while simultaneously transforming their identity (Zetter, 1991: 45). This is especially relevant for housing purposes since, in the German case, housing is provided to asylum seekers. Refugees, on the other hand, often have to apply for social housing on the same terms as regular German citizens (Klenner, 2018). This study will focus on the housing provisions to asylum seekers and not to recognized refugees.

2.3. Policy Implementation

The implementation is a crucial part of policymaking. The way a policy is implemented, the importance it has, the resources attributed to this process, as well as the accountability of the actors regarding the results achieved, will determine the effectiveness of the outcomes and accomplishment of policy’ expectations. According to Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983:20 in Cerna, 2013: 17), the implementation is “the carrying out of a basic policy decision”. This sounds simple and yet it incorporates a noticeable complexity. “A policy decision identifies the problem(s) to be addressed, stipulates the objective(s) to be pursued and structures the implementation process” (Sabatier and Mazmanian 1980: 540 in Cerna, 2013:17). The manner in which these decisions are implemented conditions substantially the outcome. Therefore, an identified problem will not be solved by policymaking if the implementation does not result as planned (Cerna, 2013: 17).

A successful implementation is seized to occur when “agencies comply with the directives of the statues, agencies are held accountable for reaching specific indicators of success, goals of the statute are achieved, local goals are achieved or there is an improvement in the political climate around the program” (Ingram and Schneider 1990 in Cerna, 2013: 17). It is important to remember that policy implementation is a multi-staged and developmental process (McLaughlin 1987: 176 in Cerna, 2013:17).

Many factors contribute to the successful or unsuccessful implementation of a policy, ranging from political and social contexts to institutional and economic matters (Cerna, 2013: 17). One of the factors that is relevant to the case of refugee housing is institutional complexity. As Payne (2008 in Cerna, 2013:17) laid down, not acknowledging the institutional and particular context can negatively influence, or even hinder, the implementation of a policy. Factors, such as local capacity and political will, as well as

(13)

12

availability of adequate resources and the existence of clear goals (McLaughlin 1987 in Cerna, 2013:17), are fundamental in the complying with refugee housing provisions. Concerning the approach, this study adopts a bottom-up perspective, as opposed to a top-down approach, which excessively focuses on the policy makers and considers the implementation dependent on the policy design rather than on the implementation process itself (Cerna, 2013: 18). The bottom-up approach emphasizes the role of the targeted groups and the service deliverers, concentrating the analysis on the local level (Matland 1995: 146 in Cerna, 2013: 18). Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge the involvement of policy-makers and the interaction among the governmental layers that participate in the delivery a public service (Cerna, 2013: 18). The local, regional and national actors that contribute to the planning, financing and execution of the refugee housing policy have to be identified, as well as their goals, strategies and interests (Cerna, 2013: 18).

The variables that need to be taken into account, in order to ensure an adequate implementation, are the following (Cerna, 2013: 23): the policy standards and objectives; the availability of adequate resources; the interorganizational communication and enforcement processes; the specific characteristics of the implementing agencies and actors; the economic, social and political contexts; and, the disposition of the implementers.

The implementation process is divided in five stages Cerna, 2013: 23). Firstly, policy decisions are taken by the implementing agencies. Secondly, the target groups, of the previously taken decisions, have to comply with the decisions made. The third stage concerns the actual impact of the agency’s decisions. Next are the perceived impacts of the mentioned decisions. Finally, there is the political evaluation of the implementation process and of the content of the decisions made.

2.4. Street-level bureaucracy

The implementation of a specific policy relies strongly on the actions taken by the implementers. It also depends on inactions, decisions and criteria of the bureaucrats that are at micro-level interacting directly with the target groups. The first factor is the way

(14)

13

street-level bureaucrats work out among themselves how to apply policy decisions (Hupe, 2013: 425). Secondly, the organization of the agencies’ involvement may vary quite significantly from one municipality to another (Hupe, 2013: 425). Furthermore, as Peter Hupe stated, “the ways in which similar tasks […] are institutionally embedded, may vary along cross-national lines” (Hupe, 2013: 425).

According to Hawkins (1992 in Hupe, 2013: 426), the use of discretion is a crucial part in the interpretation of rules, needed to make sense out of them and to establish relevance sequence in the appliance of those same rules. Discretion can be defined as “the latitude that front-line bureaucrats possess to interpret rules when implementing programs, making them de facto bureaucratic policy makers” (Stensöta, 2012: 554 in Hupe, 2013: 432). Consequently, the discretion of street-level bureaucrats implementing refugee-housing policies probably conditions the wellbeing of the recipients and their chances to integration.

According to Lipsky, street-level bureaucrats not only resort to implement public policy, they also contribute in shaping it (Lipsky, 2010). This phenomenon occurs mainly because they develop their own coping mechanisms and so-called short cuts to deal with their tasks, conditioning the aim of the policies they implement (Lipsky, 2010). Lipsky identified the dilemma of the dual role that is expected from the bureaucrat (Lipsky, 2010). One the one hand, the bureaucrat is required to strictly follow the organizational regulations and goals (Lipsky, 2010); on the other hand, the same bureaucrat has to consider each case separately and acknowledge the personal circumstances t of each client (Lipsky, 2010).

Adding to this dual role is the pressure the bureaucrat experiences while fulfilling his responsabilities. In order to handle this pressure, street-level bureaucrats develop mechanisms: coping, networking and activism (Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 552). Coping is defined as the individual reaction of accepting the pressure and trying to make the best out of it (Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 552). A professional reaction is networking, which leads the workers to exchange lessons and establish common goals (Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 552). Whereas activism is a significantly distinct reaction. It implies that the bureaucrat seeks to change the work circumstances in order to reduce the pressure he is subjected to (Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 552).

(15)

14

The degree of formal authority of both, the agency and the individual worker (Wilson, 1989 in Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 553), determines the flexibility of the bureaucrat to take his own decisions. In this sense, the gap between the resources available and the demands made plays a fundamental role in the provision of public services (Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 555). The citizens’ expectations concerning public services are frequently too high to be met by the micro-level agencies, due to the lack of time, information or resources available (Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 555).

2.5. Housing

A house, a home, the place where one lives is essential to every human being. We establish a personal connection with the place we inhabit, those “four walls” that contain our live. The individual’s identity is bound to the environment and partly defined by the house that he inhabits. Therefore, an asylum seeker is an asylum seeker because he is forced to leave his home and now searches for a refuge.

The European Union defines asylum accommodation centers as “any place used for collective housing of asylum seekers” (Council Directive 2013/33/EU, Art. 2, i) which guarantees “an adequate standard of living” (Council Directive 2013/33/EU, Art. 18, 1b). This vague definition includes all kinds of housing facilities, ranging from private houses and flats to hotels and big communal facilities (Council Directive 2013/33/EU, Art. 18, 1c).

The accommodation centers for asylum seekers serve a double function: controlling the presence of asylum seekers (Szczepanikova, 2012: 132), and providing them with services and assistance (Szczepanikova, 2012: 136). The confinement of asylum seekers in this kind of facilities allows the authorities to control the exact number of people and regulate their presence (Szczepanikova, 2012: 133). These housing facilities can cause the disillusionment with the asylum system and procedures, as well as encourage illicit activities (Szczepanikova, 2012: 133). Furthermore, the reasons individuals apply for asylum, and the increased amount of time they are forced to spend in these

(16)

15

accommodation centers, significantly affect the social environment of the facilities (Szczepanikova, 2012: 134).

The power relations between the governmental authorities and NGOs often mark the assistance and services provided in accommodation centers (Szczepanikova, 2012: 136). The state of the material equipment, ranging from hygienic to recreational amenities, as well as the services provided in housing facilities in terms of education and legal assistance, need to be analyzed by bearing in mind who provides them. Wendel (2014a in Aumüller, Daphi, Biesenkamp; 2015:36) suggested some criteria to be fulfilled in order to guarantee acceptable human housing. These criteria include: a minimum living and sleeping space per person, a limited number of people accommodated in one room, a location favorable to human development (close to schools, hospitals, good transportation), a specific size and maximum occupancy, the existence of cooking and sanitary facilities (preferably private), as well as the availability of common areas and recreational activities.

The OECD stated, in a report of 2016, that it is important for refugees to start a new life quickly (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 9), meaning that they require clear perspectives which contribute materially and psychologically in overcoming traumas and simplifying an orientation towards a better future (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 9). According to a study sponsored by the Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees in 2016, most asylum seekers prefer to stay in private housing options due to security and privacy reasons (Brücker, Rother, Schupp; 2016: 31). Furthermore, the study concluded that the long-term accommodation in shared facilities has a negative impact on both, the physical and the psychological dimensions of asylum seekers (Aumüller, Daphi, Biesenkamp; 2015:163). Housing is a key factor for integration and social participation (Häußermann and Siebel 2000, Esser 2001 in Brücker, Rother, Schupp; 2016: 30). An accommodation, independently if it is an apartment or a communal housing facility, should provide a space for protection, stability, privacy and social interaction (Brücker, Rother, Schupp; 2016: 30). Consequently, the provisions on the establishment, the length of mandatory stay and the criteria for the types of housing offered to asylum seekers will researched.

Concerning social housing, this concept refers to the housing system managed and/or financed by state authorities to provide accommodation to the less favored citizens that

(17)

16

are unable to afford to own or rent decent housing in the private market (UNECE, 2015:12). Nonetheless, due to the economic crises of 2008, the social housing sector in most European states was confronted with two major challenges: the increase of individuals in need of social housing and the reduced funds and budget cuts (UNECE, 2015:12).

2.6. Flüchtlingsunterkunft and Zufluchtsort

Zufluchtsort is the German expression that refers to a safe and protected space (Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 30). This concept is related to Flüchtling (refugee), which in German refers to someone that flees from distress and searches for a place of shelter and refuge. The positive connotation of the mentioned concepts is not translated into the German refugee policies, which use negative term of the Flüchtlingsunterkunft (Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 30) translated as refugee accommodation. The reason for that are the multiple housing facilities like Flüchtlingsheim (refugee home), Wohnheim (residential home) and Asylheim (asylum home). These concepts share the negative connotation of a public institution that serves the purpose of sheltering a specific group of people in need of social protection, like old people in a nursing home, or mental ill patients in a psychiatric clinic (Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 31).

(18)

17

(19)

18

Chapter 3. Methodology

The main purposes of this thesis are to establish how the housing policies for refugees are being implemented on the micro-level, as well as to prove both hypotheses outlined in the introduction, concerning the coordination among governmental layers and the impact of communal housing on asylum seekers. In order to achieve these aims, this research pursues a single-case-study design. Nevertheless, due to the limitations and shortfalls explained in the next two subsections, the results cannot be generalized to other municipalities in North Rhine Westphalia.

3.1. Case selection

Due to the complexity of seizing the role of the federal state in the provision of housing to asylum seekers, since each state has different dispositions and mechanisms to accomplish that task, the study needed to limit itself to only one federal state. Ideally, this study would analyze several municipalities in one chosen federal state. Due to feasibility reasons concerning time and space limitations, a single-case study is a more appropriate design to allow a better understanding of this complex subject by scrutinizing in depth one municipality. In view of the fact that the Land of North Rhine Westphalia has obtained the highest quota of asylum seekers, 21% of all the asylum seekers in Germany5, it has been chosen as the most relevant case, from a crisis management perspective, to be analyzed.

The initial choice for a municipality was Cologne, is due to its political relevance, owed to its size and population - with 1.076.000 inhabitants, Cologne is the fourth most populated city in Germany3-, but also as a result of to two majors incidents, namely the sexual assaults of women on New Year’s Eve 2015/2016 committed by North African and Middle Eastern migrants and refugees (BBC, 2016); as well as the stabbing of the

3_{Data from January 2018.}

(20)

19

now mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker (Diehler, 2015), by a right extremist due to her support to policies favoring refugees.

Nevertheless, as a result of the full agenda of the municipal departments in charge of the refugee housing implementation and the lack of will to cooperate of the local authorities in Cologne, the municipality of Aachen was selected as study object.

Although Aachen is a significant city due to its size and population (255.967 inhabitants4) and its location next to two national borders (with Belgium and the Netherlands), it has not suffered any significant incidents involving refugees. On the contrary, many inhabitants displayed a great deal of societal involvement by volunteering to welcome the asylum seekers and to help in covering their basic needs (Schumacher, 2017 Dec 1). Interestingly enough, Aachen has a relatively elevated quota of asylum seekers, compared to other cities of similar size and population5_{, even surpassing occasionally the mandatory}

number of individuals it had to house.

Finally, to simplify the work, a very specific time-frame has been laid out for the entire study, starting in June 2014 until April 2018. The time-frame is based on the rise of asylum seekers arrival and petitions in 2014 that led to the creation and remodel of housing policies that were firstly implemented in 2015.

3.2. Data collection and analysis proceedings

This thesis is based on qualitative content analysis, complemented with interviews. Owing to the focus on internal mechanisms of the implementation of refugee housing policies in Aachen, the data has been collected from three primary sources. Firstly, relevant official policy documents and legal texts, ranging fromthe national Asylum laws – such as the Asylgesetz (AsylG) and the Flüchtlingsaufnahmegesetz (FlügAG) – to the laws concerning social housing and refugee housing (Gesetz über Massnahmen im Bauplanungsrecht zur Erleichterung der Unterbringung von Flüchtlingen), have been

4_{Data from December 2017.}

http://www.aachener-zeitung.de/lokales/aachen/stadt-haelt-wachstumskurs-aachen-zaehlt-jetzt-255967-buerger-1.1795491

5_{Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees, official website}

(21)

20

gathered from the official websites of the Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees and of the state of North Rhine Westphalia. Secondly, national statistics and official reports on the implementation and evaluation of the refugee housing policies have been used for the analysis.

Finally, interviews with relevant stakeholders have been conducted, with the aim to provide a broader perspective on their street-level experiences and impressions. Concerning the interviewees, a semi-structured interview with the two team leaders of the social housing department of the municipality of Aachen, namely Mr. Joachim Klenner and Ms. Shennay Demir, was conducted, recorded and transcribed (see Annex 3). Three social workers in three different facilities where interviewed, also following a semi-structured scheme. Due to privacy reasons, these three interviews were not recorded and only the first names of the interviewees are referenced. All interviews were conducted on the 4th May 2018 in Aachen. The initial idea included interviewing bureaucrats at federal and national level as well. Nonetheless, this has not been possible due to omission or refusal of participation of the contacted individuals and institutions.

The next chapter analyses the official policy and legal documents in order to provide the necessary insights to answer the first sub questions, concerning the responsibilities of each governmental layer in the implementation, the financing of the refugee housing policy, and how each action is delegated. Next, the outcomes and mechanisms that operated in Germany during the crisis are seized based on official reports from governmental institutions and think tanks. Finally, the translation of the policies into action on the micro-level is assessed by interviewing five street-level bureaucrats of the municipality of Aachen. For this final purpose, semi-structured interviews have been conducted and refugee-housing facilities have been visited.

3.3. Operationalization of concepts and indicators

The main concepts of this study are multi-level governance, refugee housing, policy implementation and street level bureaucrats. This study understands Multi-level Governance as the “coordination among governmental institutions at different levels” (Caponio, Jones-Correa; 2017: 5). This concept will be used to analyze three main

(22)

21

elements in the relationship among the Bundesregierung (the national government), the federal state and the municipality: legal and political responsibility, financing and interaction. To operationalize MLG, the following indicators have been applied:

Table 1: Operationalization of Multi-level Governance

Label Indicator

A Each level has a clear task in the provision of housing and complies with it. B Each level contributes financially according to the previously legally

established manner.

C The communication, the information share and cooperation works among all three layers of government.

The definition of housing for refugees, forwarded by German Asylum Law, is limited to “provide shelter” (§ 48, 53, 60 AsylG). Due to the lack of standards and indicators provided by, both the Bundesregierung and the federal state of North Rhine Westphalia, refugee housing is defined, based on the literature of the previous chapter, as follows: governmentally financed and provided housing to asylum seekers that offers facilities to sleep, self-hygiene and cook. The indicators for refugee housing are the following:

Table 2: Operationalization of Refugee Housing

D Housing provided, financed and managed by public institutions. E The housing facilities are exclusively for asylum seekers F The housing facility has a specific room to rest with a bed.

G The housing facility has at least one bathroom, including toilet and shower, either private or shared.

H The housing facility has a cooking facility, either private or shared.

In order to analyze the impact of communal housing on asylum seekers, a set of additional indicators has been elaborated:

(23)

22

Table 3: Contextual Indicators of Refugee Housing

I The housing facility serves the purpose of controlling the presence of asylum seekers and refugees.

J The space is adequately protected from physical threats and attacks from right extremists and others that could hurt the inhabitants of the housing facility.

K The predominantly type of housing chosen by the municipality is based on its approach to asylum seekers, either as an emergency that needs to be tackled quickly or in a long-term integration perspective.

L The type of housing complies with a series of written standards and criteria established by either the federal state or the municipality.

M The housing provides comfort and shelter as Zufluchstort.

Concerning the concept of policy implementation, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983: 20 in Cerna, 2013: 17) define implementation as “the carrying out of a basic policy decision”. According to Ingram and Schneider (1990 in Cerna, 2013: 17), when “agencies comply with the directives of the statues, agencies are held accountable for reaching specific indicators of success, goals of the statute are achieved, local goals are achieved or there is an improvement in the political climate around the program”. Therefore, the following indicators have been used in this study:

Table 4: Operationalization of Policy Implementation

N Adequate and sufficient resources are available to the implementing agencies and actors.

O Clear goals are explicitly outlined in directives and/or policy documents. P The actor in charge of implementing the policy applies the directives

established by the policies.

Q The targeted population by the policy is able to benefit or be restricted by the content of the policy through established regulations.

(24)

23

As for street-level bureaucrats, this study considers them as the frontline workers that implement policies for governmental agencies (Lipsky, 2010). Their main characteristics are their direct and regular interaction with the recipients of the governmental policies and services (Lipsky, 2010), along with their discretionary power in the allocation of the services, benefits and sanctions to the clients (Lipsky, 2010). In order to handle the pressure, street-level bureaucrats resort to coping, networking and activism mechanisms (Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 552). Finaly, the degree of formal authority of both, the agency and the individual worker (Wilson, 1989 in Hupe, Buffat; 2014: 553), can shape substantially the provision of services by street-level bureaucrats. Consequently, the following indicators have been developed:

Table 5: Operationalization of Street-Level Bureaucracy

R A governmental agency or public institution employs the worker.

S The worker is in constant and direct interaction with the recipients of the policy.

T The worker has a certain influence on the allocation of the services, benefits and sanctions established by the policy and owned by the public institution he works for.

U The street-level bureaucrats resort to one or more pressure handling mechanisms (coping, networking or activism), influencing the outcome of the refugee housing policy in the municipality.

V The street-level bureaucrat and/or the local agency has enough formal authority to substantially variate the policy outcomes from the policy decisions.

(25)

24

Chapter 4. Analysis

4.1. Providing refugee housing in Germany: expectations versus reality

4.1.1. Socio-political context

The admission of 1.2 million asylum seekers between the years 2014 and 2015 was a huge challenge for the federal system of the Republic of Germany (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 5). The year 2015 experienced the historic peak of 476.620 applications for asylum (BBSR; 2017: 3; Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 3). From this figure, 158.657 applications were from Syrian nationals, followed by Iraqis, Afghanis and countries in the Balkan region, including 53.805 made by Albanians and 33.427 applications from Kosovans (Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 3; BBSR; 2017: 5). Comparing these numbers to 2014, the asylum applications rose in a 150% (Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 3). The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, decided to maintain the borders open for this sudden inflow of asylum seekers despite the internal resistance of her coalition partners and other EU members fortifying their borders.

By virtue of the distinctive attributes of this collective, noticeably, 71.1% of the applicants on national level in 2015 were remarkably young -under the age of 30-, and up to 69.2% were male (Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 3). These particularities conditioned significantly the housing needs in the federal state of North Rhine Westphalia, which received 21.21% of total sum of asylum seekers (Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 2). This meant that the state had to accommodate 329.667 individuals in 2015; more specifically, it had to accept 227.625 people between the months of September and December 2015 alone. As a result, North Rhine Westphalia obtained the uppermost aggregated sum of initial and subsequent asylum applications in 2015, closely followed by the state of Bavaria with 71,168 and Baden-Württemberg, with 61.671 (Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 3).

(26)

25

Since 1982, asylum seekers are assigned to the federal states according to the Königsteiner Schlüssel (Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 55). The Königsteiner Schlüssel is a distribution ratio based on the tax revenue of each federal state – accounting for two thirds of the total calculation-, and the population –that only computes one third of the formula (Bundesregierung, 2018). The method results in an unequal division, where larger municipalities are obliged to accept higher numbers of asylum seekers (Bundesregierung, 2018). Whereas the logic behind this division is justified, the fact that the applicants are to remain for three consecutive years in the federal state they have been assigned to – applying to all individuals in the asylum procedure since the 1st of January 2016 (Bundesregierung, 2018)- increased extensively the social and financial burden for the greater municipalities. This provision negatively impacts the asylum seekers as well, since their will is not considered in the formula, only the nuclear family unit is respected (Wendel 2014 in Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 5).

(27)

26

According to the Asylum Law (AsylG), the federal states and municipalities are obliged to accept asylum seekers assigned by the Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees, as well as to provide them with immediate accommodation and ensure that their basic needs are covered (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 5; Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 3). Such an extensive responsibility – counting shelter, medical care, counseling and support-, demands vast resources that plenty of cities struggle to gather (Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 3). Additionally, most face socio-spatial divisions’ challenges, social inequalities, conflicts between residents and the rise of right-wing tendencies when housing asylum seekers (Ottersbach, Wiedemann; 2016: 1). Conversely, the responsibility of accepting or rejecting the asylum applications is exclusively of the Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 33)

As a result of prompt increment of asylum applications in a limited period of time, the Bundesregierung was unable to fulfill its obligations; notably, it was incapable of registering the incoming asylum applicants, increasing significantly the burden of the federal states (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 5). This situation required the federal states and the municipalities to perform the reception and initial care of the migrants (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 5).

(28)

27

The primary obstacle municipalities were –and continue to be- confronted with, is the existing shortage of housing that could lead to competition between locals and refugees for affordable accommodation (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 41). Moreover, the housing supply cannot be rapidly enlarged by constructing new residential units as there is a sever lack of suited land for this purpose (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 43).

The second concern cities have is the social and ethnic segregation in residential neighborhoods (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 41). Most immigrants prefer to live in close proximity to socially, ethnically and culturally similar individuals, in order to network and support each other better (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 46). Conversely, the local authorities believe that this would foster the segregation of immigrants and divide the community. Therefore, municipalities adopt a decentralized approach to house the incoming asylum seekers, ignoring the predilection of these individuals (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 46).

The accommodation of asylum seekers is one of the most politicized and polarized topics of German migration policy (Müller; 2013: 28). Especially in the recent decades where the percentage of immigrant population is rising in Germany and the housing markets are becoming increasingly tight, with scarce offer and rising prices.

4.1.2. Legal framework

First, in order to provide accommodation to asylum seekers, the German legal framework defined the individuals that are entitled to become refugees and, consequently, are eligible to be housed until the asylum application procedure is positively finalized. According to Article 16a I of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz), politically persecuted people in their home country are to be granted asylum in Germany (Bezirksregierung Köln; 2015: 5). In consonance, the German Asylum Law of 1992 establishes that a foreigner is to be considered a refugee if he or she has justified fear of persecution “due to race, religion, nationality, political convictions or the affiliation to a specific social group” (§ 3 paragraph 1 AsylG). Thus, the Constitution, the Geneva Refugee Convention (art. 1) of 1951, as well as the Asylum Law of 1992, are the legal basis for the recognition of refugees in German nation-state (Bezirksregierung Köln; 2015: 5).

(29)

28

Individuals that seek refuge in Germany are obliged to submit their request for asylum to the Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees (§ 5 paragraph 1 AsylG). The Head of the Agency, in coordination with each Land, is required to set up field offices at every central reception facility for asylum seekers with a capacity of 1.000 people (§ 5 paragraph 3 AsylG). The financial resources to maintain these field offices stem partially from an agreement with the federal states, where these provide the material and human resources “for the necessary fulfillment of its [the Federal Agency’s] duties in the field offices” (§ 5 paragraph 4 AsylG). As for the mentioned reception facilities, the federal states are in charge of providing and maintaining them (§ 44 paragraph 1 AsylG).

A central distribution office appointed by the Federal Ministry of the Interior designates the reception center responsible for the welcoming and housing of each asylum seeker (§ 46 paragraph 2 AsylG). The admission quota -as stated in § 45-, the availability of accommodation places, as well as the processing possibilities of the respective field office with regard to the countries of origin of the foreigners, are decisive in the assignation of the asylum seeker to a specific reception center (§ 46 paragraph 2 AsylG).

The reception center responsible for the admission of the asylum seeker is obliged to shelter him or her for the first six weeks, extendable to a maximum period of six months (§ 47 paragraph 1 AsylVfG). Asylum seekers are, therefore, required to reside in the reception center they are sent to until the pending asylum process is finalized (§ 47 paragraph 1a AsylG). These facilities are required to inform the asylum seeker of who can provide him or her with legal assistance and which associations can advise are suited to advise him or her in concerning medical care (§ 47 paragraph 4 AsylG). If the reception centers do not possess sufficient capacities to meet the federal quota of asylum applicants, the federal state is obliged to create additional accommodation options or to shorten the length of stay in the reception facilities (Müller; 2013: 30).

The obligation to reside in a reception center finalizes six months after the arrival, when the asylum seeker (§ 48 AsylG):

a. is obliged to take up residence in another accommodation,

(30)

29

c. has an application for residence in the Federal territory, by marriage or civil partnership, which fulfills the requirements for a legal entitlement to a residence permit under the Residence Act.

Asylum seekers are to be dismissed immediately from the reception center, and distributed within the federal state, when the Federal Agency informs the competent state authority that it cannot be proved in the time frame of six months if the asylum application is inadmissible, or manifestly unfounded (§ 50 paragraph 1 AsylG). The Government of the federal state regulates the distribution (§ 50 paragraph 2 AsylG) and informs, within a period of three working days, the Federal Agency of the district where the asylum seeker will be allocated (§ 50 paragraph 3 AsylG). The competent federal authority issues the written allocation decision accompanied of a legal remedy, but excluding a justification (§ 50 paragraph 4AsylG). The allocation decision is also sent to the asylum seeker, who is required to proceed immediately to the indicated place (§ 50 paragraph 5-6 AsylG).

The federal states are responsible for the admission, accommodation and granting of basic services to asylum seekers under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act (AsylbLG) (Müller; 2013: 13). Accordingly, they also bear the costs of the mentioned tasks (Müller; 2013: 13). Nevertheless, once an asylum seeker has initiated the asylum process and is not, or no longer, obliged to reside in a reception center, the responsibility of his accommodation is transferred to the municipalities (§ 53 paragraph 1 AsylG).

The arrangement of the accommodation is expected to acknowledge both, the public interest and interests of the asylum seeker (§ 53 paragraph 1 AsylG). Nevertheless, the municipalities are entitled to define the kind of housing they may provide (Wendel 2014 in Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 55). In general, the asylum applicants are send to shared housing facilities, allowing the local authorities to oversee their location and movements, much to the discomfort of the asylum seekers. The obligation to live in a shared accommodation ceases when the Federal Agency recognizes the asylum seeker as entitled to asylum, ergo as refugee, or if a court forces the Federal Agency to recognize it (§ 53 paragraph 2 AsylG).

The residence permit of the newly recognized refugee is limited to the district area of the Immigration Office responsible for his admission (§ 56 paragraph 1 AsylG). Regarding

(31)

30

the asylum seeker who is not, or no longer, obliged to inhabit a reception center, may be allowed to temporarily leave the scope of the residence permit, or, to reside in the district of another Immigration Office (§ 58 paragraph 1 AsylG). Nevertheless, the Police, the border authority where the foreigner seeks asylum, the Foreigners Office in whose district the foreigner resides, the reception facility in which the foreigner registers, and the reception center which has accepted him, are all responsible to hinder the asylum seeker of leaving the permitted area during the first three months of his or her stay (§ 59 paragraph 3 AsylG). This confirms that the public authorities prioritize their control of the individual’s movements over his wellbeing and integration.

Observing the figure above, the first remark one can make on the provision of housing to refugees in Germany, is the enormous decentralization of the governmental

(32)

31

responsibilities, which was progressively introduced since 1978 in order to speed up the asylum process (Rott & Gabriel, 2017: 55).

In terms of information flow between the governmental layers, the Länder are responsible of ensuring that the central distribution office is informed at all times of the necessary data for the upcoming distributions to the reception centers, in particular regarding information on entries and exits, occupancy and available capacities (§ 46 paragraph 4 AsylG). The housing facilities, in turn, are only required to inform the central distribution office of the number of foreigners they host, as well as indicating the countries of origin (§ 46 paragraph 3 AsylG).

Several regulations had to be adapted, modified and bent in order to face the sudden inflow of refugees in 2015. Among the laws that required modification is the Construction Planning Act (BauGB). A new law on measures for construction planning, aiming to facilitate the accommodation of refugees, was approved in November 2014.6_{The "Law}

on Measures in the Planning Act to Facilitate the Housing of Refugees" of 2014, as well as art. 6 of the “Asylum Procedures Acceleration Act” of 2016, had a significant impact on easing the construction and habilitation of refugee housing facilities (BBSR; 2017: 78).

More precisely, the new article §246 paragraphs 8-17 of the Construction Planning Act simplifies the procurement of the authorization for constituting refugee accommodation (BBSR; 2017: 78). The review of the BauGB explicitly created the legal obligation of considering the needs and preferences of the refugees when elaborating the construction plans (§ 1 (6) (13) BauGB in BBSR; 2017: 80). Regarding the Construction Act (BauNVO), new regulations were passed that allowed the conversion of non-residential buildings, including the ones located industrial sites or with unfitted interior for human inhabitance, into refugee accommodations (BBSR; 2017: 78).

Nevertheless, multiple guidelines remained strict. According to §§ 8 to 11 of the Construction Act, the use of mobile accommodations, such as container villages of space boxes, cannot be extended for more than three years (BBSR; 2017: 80). The identical

(33)

32

time period applies to the employment of converted commercial and industrial buildings (BBSR; 2017: 80). The fundamental problem with converted non-residential buildings involves the fire protection, as the establishment of a second escape route is in multiple cases impossible due to space limitations (BBSR; 2017: 80). (§ 1 (6) (13) BauGB in BBSR; 2017: 80). On the exception of the last matter mention, most of new construction provisions are only valid until the 31.12.2019 (BBSR; 2017: 78).

Proceeding to the provisions regulating the residence of asylum seekers, the Integration Act developed by the Federal of the 6th_{August 2016 is essential (Deutscher Städtetag;}

2016: 15). This Act enables the issuing of residence permits, the possibility of resident allocation -which applies retroactively to 1 January 2016-, and a more even distribution of the asylum seekers among the municipalities (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 15). Although the primary aim is to facilitate the supply of adequate housing, it further pursues the objectives of ensuring integration, avoiding segregation and social hot spots (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 15). The residence allocation, which is limited to three years, enables the federal states to assign the refugees a specific residence, or to prohibit them moving to specific areas, if this is necessary for improved integration (Deutscher Städtetag; 2016: 15).

Two legal requirements condition substantially the freedom of residence of asylum seekers in Germany (Aumüller, Daphi, Biesenkamp; 2015: 23). Firstly, the Residenzpflicht, meaning the mandatory residence that restricts the asylum seekers to a fixed spatial radius, such as a municipality, an administrative district or a federal state (Aumüller, Daphi, Biesenkamp; 2015: 23). The immigration authorities in each federal state define the spatial radius. Secondly, the Wohnsitzauflage, meaning the residence constraint of asylum seekers, along with recognized refugees that are dependent on social welfare, to reside in the ambit encompassed by their residence permit (Aumüller, Daphi, Biesenkamp; 2015: 23).

The purpose is to prevent uncontrolled internal migration of foreign welfare recipients, in pursuance of ensuring a fairly and controlled share the costs incurred by federal states and municipalities (Aumüller, Daphi, Biesenkamp; 2015: 23). Nonetheless, when a residence permit is restricted to a single municipality, the process to acquire private

(34)

33

accommodation in tight-housing markets has proven to be problematic (Aumüller, Daphi, Biesenkamp; 2015: 23).

Concerning the financing of these measures, the Federal Agency for Real Estate Tasks (BImA) assists municipalities in the quest for buildings suited for refugee housing (Bundesregierung, 2018). Since the beginning of 2015, the BImA has been able to lease suitable real estates to federal states and municipalities, without requiring rent (Bundesregierung, 2018). Additionally, the municipalities are allowed to apply for loans of up to 1.5 billion euros, on a zero percent interest rate, to build, convert, acquit, modernize and/or equip buildings destined to house asylum seekers (Bundesregierung, 2018). These state sponsored loans are expected to support approximately 700 municipalities while constituting 150.000 housing spots for asylum seekers (Bundesregierung, 2018). Moreover, the federal government contributes with 1.5 billion euros to social housing per year (Bundesregierung, 2018).

Expanding on the financial aspect, the Bundesregierung provided the federal states with an annual integration fee of 2 billion euros until 2018 (Bundesregierung, 2018). Since January 2016, the federal government has supported the federal states with a monthly lump sum of 670 euros per asylum seeker (Bundesregierung, 2018). These funds are allocated throughout the total span of the asylum procedure, from the registration of the migrant to recognition or rejection of refugee status (Bundesregierung, 2018). Conversely, the federal state grants the municipalities 84 million euros per year to encompass the costs of admission and accommodation of the asylum seekers (Wedel, 2014: 23). A 4.5% of the previous financial party is exclusively reserved to the procurement of social care in shared housing facilities (Wendel; 2014: 23).

Nevertheless, these monetary provisions were insufficient in North Rhine Westphalia. Hence, the Landesregierung eventually reimbursed the additional costs of housing asylum seekers during the timeframe between 2016 and 2018 (Bundesregierung, 2018). As a result, municipalities have been relieved a 400 million euros burden in 2016, a 900 million euros in 2017, and it is expected that the municipalities’ costs for 2018 will be reduced in 1.3 billion euros by the federal government (Bundesregierung, 2018).

(35)

34 4.1.3. Three layers of government

The relationship between the federal government, the federal states and the municipalities was heavily burdened throughout the refugee crisis (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 7). The federal states and the municipalities were abruptly confronted with wide-ranging and costly responsibilities (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 7). In particular, they were expected to arrange accommodation and provide basic services to asylum seekers. Nevertheless, shortly the tasks extended to guaranteeing the integration of the refugees (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 7). Functional deficits at the national level forced the federal states to assume further expenses and obligations (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 7).

The suboptimal federal laws and the lack of enforcement of their regulatory capacity profoundly burdened the operating of the federal states and municipalities (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11). The national Interior Minister, in an effort to display the commitment of the Bundesregierung, periodically passes so-called "asylum packages", which include new policies and financial measures, while disregarding the obstacles of the implementation mechanisms (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11). Furthermore, these asylum packages expose the states and municipalities continuously with new provisions, requiring them to adapt their approach on a regular basis (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11). For the municipalities, which have to endure the significant figures of asylum seekers, implement, on a periodical basis, new regulations can imply an additional hardship (Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11).

It countless occasions, it has been proven that complex legal structures generate great difficulties to administrative action at the local level, adversely affecting law enforcement (Eule 2014 in Thränhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11). In the German political culture, it is common to call for centralized solutions with the promise that everything will become standarized and consequently improved (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11). Nonetheless, in the case of the refugee crisis, the federal authorities have largely failed to meet these expectations: the Federal Minister of Interior delayed the adequate recruitment of resources to provide the Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees; the collective accommodations announced by the federal government were never built (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11).

(36)

35

On the other hand, the federal states and decentralized structures have proved remarkably successful (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11). They have shown to be able to find solutions by collaborating with the civil society and non-governmental organizations, including churches and sports clubs (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11). The federal states and municipalities used their own funds and, subsequently, raised reimbursing demands to the federal government (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 11).

In terms of responsibilities, the national level maintains the foreign policy framework in place, supervises the border control, enacts the identification of the foreigners, and controls the asylum concession or decline (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12). The Federal Agency, subedited to the Bundesregierung, regulates the employment services and the supporting measures for the asylum seekers (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12). The federal states are expected to guarantee the initial reception of asylum seekers, to distribute them to the municipalities and to coordinate their integration (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12). Finally, the municipalities are responsible for the final admission, accommodation and basic services provided to the asylum seekers (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12).

Under the outlined system, the federal states and local authorities incur in substantial costs to cover accommodation and services when the resolution of the asylum procedure is delayed (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12). Despite being the states the ones that have to come up for those extra costs, they have no influence on the asylum procedure, which is entirely dependent of the Federal Agency (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12). To reduce the financial pressure on the Länder, the national government has been assuming part of the expenses since the beginning of 2016 through a lump sum for the duration of the procedure (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12). Once the refugees are recognized, they are subject to the provisions of SGB II (for non-working SGB XII), which are the regulations for low-income households that require social housing and assistance (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12). The responsibility is then transferred to the federal government, which enacts it via the employment agencies and partly in cooperation with the municipalities (Thrändhardt, Weiss; 2016: 12).

(37)

36

Since the federal government has delegated the responsibility for the "reception and accommodation”, as well as the “granting of essential services" (Müller 2013 in Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7), the implementation of the Asylum Law (AsylbLG) is almost entirely responsibility of the federal states (Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7). In practice, most of the federal states delegate these tasks - with the exception of the initial admission – either entirely or partially, to the local level and supervise them through state admission laws (Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7).

The delegation of tasks from the federal state to the municipalities is possible because local authorities are not considered legally a governmental layer in their own right (Wehling 2009 in Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7); rather than that, they are an intrinsic part of the federal state. The authority sphere of the municipality is variable and can be classified according to three types of tasks (Bieker 2006; Wohlfahrt 2013 in Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7): instruction-bound compulsory, obligatory self-administration and voluntary self-administration.

In instruction-bound compulsory tasks, the content and the implementation are specified in detail by the federal state, eliminating any margin of discretion for the municipalities, as the ministries of the state supervise every detail (Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7). An example of this type of duty is the provision of accommodation (Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7). Nevertheless, housing is a source of public pressure on the local administration to initiate voluntary self-government tasks. This explains why in many municipalities local policy concepts for refugee work are often extended housing concepts (Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 7).

Municipalities enjoy more freedom when implementing mandatory self-administration tasks, where federal state laws prescribe the discretion in implementation but the local action cannot be intervened by the state authorities (Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 12). In the case of voluntary self-administration tasks, municipalities can decide whether to act at all and how to do it, while the state ministries only monitor their compliance with the existing laws (Schammann, Kühn; 2016: 12).

Refugees playing the Housing Roulette in Germany

Master Thesis

Refugees playing the Housing

Roulette in Germany

Table of contents

Chapter 1.

Introduction

Chapter 2.

Conceptual Framework

Chapter 3.

Methodology

Chapter 4.

Analysis