Wicked problems and governance : the case of refugee integration

(1)

Master thesis Political Science: International Relations

Lotte Westerbeek

10343032

January 2017

(2)

2 Abstract

Governance is a relatively new policy-making style that is put forward by many scholars as a suitable option for solving present-day societal problems of high complexity. Governance is in this thesis described as a horizontal, network-like governing structure, where both public and non-public actors work together towards a common goal. The objective of this thesis is to examine the extent to which the shift towards governance is beneficial in terms of integrating refugees in the labor market. A case study on the covenant “Amsterdam werkt voor iedereen”, an example of governance in the sphere of refugee integration in the capital of the Netherlands is conducted in order to investigate this. In this thesis it was found that in many regards governance is more suitable in solving this ‘wicked’ problem than the traditional governing-style. There is a higher level of diversity, as well as greater room for experimentation. However, the governing-form was not perceived as optimal by all respondents. It is expected that this is at least partly due to the resistance and complexities that accompany a transition period, as explained in Lewin’s theory of change.

(3)

3

Introduction

In the last decade immigration issues have come to the forefront of political and popular debate, fuelled by the current Syrian refugee crisis. On the one hand, we have the image of the drowned Syrian toddler, washed up on the beaches of the Turkish coast. The picture is a representation of the thousands of immigrants drowning in the Mediterranean Sea in their attempt to reach European shores in unseaworthy boats. Or, as The Guardian stated, it is a representation of “the full horror of human tragedy unfolding on the shores of Europe” (Smith, 2015). These deaths have led to great outcries from many European citizens and NGO’s. They want the European Union and national governments to save these people and prevent them from having to make the dangerous journey in the first place.

On the other hand, however, these refugees are often represented as a threat to the economy as well as the public order by many European politicians and media (Legrain, 2007). The inflow of immigrants is being depicted as “a tsunami of rapists flowing into the country” (Middendorp, 2015). Right-wing parties are gaining electoral strength all over Europe, claiming that refugees, and Muslims in particular, are threatening national security (“Speech Geert Wilders”, 2016). As often stated in the media, as well as by scholars, fear of immigration is an important and complex problem in many European countries.

Traditionally, these sorts of complex societal problems were being solved by the state. Public policies to tackle these problems were done within a top-down, hierarchical structure. The state was the main actor in decision-making in this type of structure (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004). However, if we are to believe various scholars in many different disciplines, the mode of governing in public policy making and implementation has moved away from this form of decision-making. Instead, a new mode of governing has emerged, usually indicated as ‘governance’. Rather than the state being the central actor in the decision-making process, other actors have emerged which have become important also. Governance can be seen as a policy-making style where there is cooperation among various levels of governments, as well as between public and non-public actors (Papadopoulos, 2003). There seems to be more room for agency by other actors than the state. Like Daly (2003) indicated in his paper, this move away from the original decision-making style is not just an idea in the academic community; it is a political reality as well.

This shift towards governance (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004) is also apparent in policy-making surrounding immigration in the Netherlands. One example of this is the approach of Dutch municipalities towards the controversy concerning the shelter of undocumented persons. One half of the Dutch national government did not want a long-term solution for sheltering these people, in order to curb the attractiveness of the Netherlands as a host country for asylum seekers. The other

(6)

6 half, however, saw the sanctuary of this vulnerable group of people as essential. This led to days and days of debate where the national government decided to solely finance the Bed-Bad-Brood shelters in the five biggest municipalities of the Netherlands. This is contrast to facilitating shelter in whatever municipality it was needed. There was great dissatisfaction among the municipalities about this solution, as well as among various parties within the national government. The situation got even named a ‘government crisis’ by de Volkskrant (Dirks, 2016). However, while the negotiations about this ‘Bed, Bad, Brood’-solution, as the policy was named, were going on, Dutch municipalities were already facing the reality of the problem. Besides, more than a year after the ‘Bed, Bad, Brood’-compromise was reached, not much has happened according to Kas (2016). Municipalities decided to take matters into their own hands by providing shelter themselves. As stated by the spokesperson of major Van Aartsen of the Hague: “Opvang is en blijft een taak van het Rijk, maar zolang de beloofde oplossing niet komt, doen wij wat nodig is. Het gaat om mensen, daarom gaan wij ermee door.” (Dirks, 2016). This loosely translates into “Providing shelter is, and will remain, the responsibility of the national government. However, as long as the promised solution is not yet implemented, we will do whatever it takes. This is about people, which is why we continue what we’re doing.” Here we see that the agency of decision-making no longer lies solely with the national government, but with other actors as well. This new form of policy-making is often found when a complex, controversial problem arises, as is the case with immigration issues (Poppelaars & Scholten, 2008).

This thesis will mostly focus on one aspect of such a complex and controversial immigration problem, namely refugee integration. Proper integration of immigrants and refugees is often put forward as a solution to the growing concerns surrounding immigration. As outlined by Zimmerman, Bauer and Lofstrom (2000, p. 23), natives are less prone to the fear of immigration if refugees’ integration is smooth and successful. In the case of proper integration, natives are not scared that the refugees will become an economic liability by for instance relying on the welfare system. Also, a better integration can help in curbing the natives’ fear towards immigrants, due to a better understanding of both cultures. According to Ager and Strang (2008) the most important aspects of successful integration are employment, housing, education and health. Knowledge of the language and culture, as well as a safe and stable environment are pointed out as facilitators. In Europe there are many examples of initiatives popping up from different parts of society and levels of government to achieve this successful integration. In the Netherlands we can see different local governments, as well as civil society, take the initiative to set up projects to help the vulnerable group of refugees with their integration (Vluchtelingenwerk, 2016). Many of these projects are dedicated to facilitating a smooth integration of refugees into the labor market, since this is often put forward as key to successful integration. The main issue is, however, whether this approach works and whether it

(7)

7 works better than the traditional top-down structure of policy-making. Therefore, in this research the following will be examined:

To what extent is the shift towards governance beneficial for the successful integration of refugees in the labor market?

This will be done through both a literature review and a case study. Note, however, that the quality and effectiveness of the policy-making process itself will be examined, thus not the eventual outcome of the policy. This is beyond the scope of this thesis.

This thesis will start by giving an overview of the relevant literature on governance and integration, providing the readerwith a theoretical framework for the rest of the thesis. Afterwards, the method that will be used to answer the central research question will be outlined. Then, we will introduce a case study about the project with regard to refugee integration in the Dutch municipality of Amsterdam. Consequently, this case will be analyzed in the following section. After the analysis, a conclusion will be given.

(8)

8

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Increasing complexity

In theories about public policy-making, the focus was traditionally mainly on the state as the central actor. In this approach, decision-making surrounding public policy was seen as a centralized process (Robinson, 2015). The policy style was characterized by a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure. The national government was believed to make the decisions and subsequently delegate the implementation to lower level governments, while at the same time keeping full control (Robinson, 2015). However, with the changing political environment, these theories, and this form of governing, seems unsustainable.

First of all, globalization is said to not only change the playing field at the international, but at the national level as well. For instance, globalization leads to greater economic integration and increased international competition. National governments have to take these factors into account. For EU-member states this was even taken a step further with monetary integration (Majone, 1997). These higher levels of integration, together with other aspects of globalization, are argued to have increased the level of controversy in many public problems.

Besides, as outlined by Sørensen and Torfing (2016), the changed character of society has played its part in complicating the governance of public policy as well. According to them, society is increasingly defined by fragmentation, complexity and dynamism. First of all, they argue that the growing autonomy of subsystems within a society have led to a more fragmented community. The same holds for the increasing independence of public and private organizations Second, they point out the growing complexity of societal problems. As stated by Koppenjan and Klijn (2004), when dealing with such a complex issue the involved parties disagree not only about the solution, but about the problem too. Additionally, the outcome of different solutions is unclear. Also, there is a high chance of conflict between the involved parties. This is because the understanding of the nature of the problem is contextual (Sørensen & Torfing, 2016). Lastly, they identify the new societal dynamics. These are created by the blurring lines between different actors in the public and private setting, as well as the blurring lines of national borders. Together, these three current aspects of society give rise to a relatively unknown, unpredictable environment for public policy-makers (Sørensen & Torfing, 2016).

These increased levels of fragmentation, complexity and dynamism is also discussed in the academic literature surrounding ‘wicked’ problems. ‘Wicked’ problems are described as being complex, open-ended and intractable (Head, 2008). Both the definition and the solution of the problem are highly contested among stakeholders. Besides, there can be debate about the

(9)

9 implementation also. Modern society is seen as highly pluralistic. According to Head (2008), imposed solutions that are fabricated in technical terms are not sufficient in such a pluralistic environment. Besides, due to this complexity and pluralism, solutions become hard to test, which impede the search for a fitting solution even further. Technical approaches have a high chance of omitting important aspect of the problem from the equation. As pointed out by Head (2008), these approaches will be likely to overlook value, perspective and expectations of the ones with a vested interest in the solutions.

One of the spheres affected by these changes in the global and societal environment is immigrant integration (Poppelaars & Scholten, 2008). First of all, as explained by Castles and Miller (2009), globalization has spurred cross-border flows of all different kinds. It started with a deeper economic integration, with increasing flows of finance and trade. However, soon followed democracy, cultural and media products, and environmental pollution (Castles & Miller, 2009). However, this also brought about great cross-border flows of people, due to faster and cheaper transportation possibilities and larger cultural integration. Besides, the Syrian War increased this number even further. Many European citizens see these migrants as a threat to public safety, as well as an economic burden. On the other hand, however, you have various scholars and politicians claiming that migrants are an economic gain to Western countries, since they can curb the effects of the future of an economic downturn due to the aging population that is currently hanging over our heads. Therefore, social and economic integration is such a disputed subject. That is to say, there is not even agreement about the nature of the problem. Besides, many different actors, with various different interests, are involved and affected by integration processes. Citizens, the national government, local governments, universities and private companies are all influenced by the outcome of policy-making surrounding social and economic integration of migrants. As a result, the process of decision-making becomes highly complex.

2.2 Governance

As claimed by various scholars, including Majone (1997), Sanderson (2000), Koppenjan and Klijn (2004), and Sørensen and Turfing (2016), the traditional form of governing structure is no longer adequate in tackling the controversial policy issues of today’s society. According to the “Australian Public Service Commission” (2012), the traditional approach for tackling issues was a linear one. However, ‘wicked’ problems ask for a more holistic approach, since today’s societal issues have such a high level of complexity, and are so intertwined. A broad view is needed to be able to grasp the bigger picture and identify these intertwined issues. A linear approach will lead to a one-sided, narrow way of thinking. In this way, the government will run a great risk of failing to tackle the issue

(10)

10 completely, or creating a policy that is accompanied by many unwanted side-effects (APSC, 2012). Besides, in order to solve these type of issues, room for experimentation is needed (APSC, 2012). Hence, the policy can become more sophisticated. Policy-makers can see what does and does not work, adjusting the policies accordingly. Therefore, many scholars conclude that the traditional form of government is insufficient in tackling these problems.

This lack of sufficiency has led to a shift in governing style and structure in many developed countries, accompanied by a shift in the literature concerning the topic (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004). The top-down, hierarchical structure is nowadays more frequently substituted by a mode of governing that is characterized by a non-hierarchical cooperation among both public and non-public actors, as well as different levels of government, in order to achieve a collective goal that cannot be reached by acting independently (Swyngedouw, 2005). This implies a transfer of decision-making power and agency to other actors than the state. As argued by numerous scholars, such as Poppelaars and Scholten (2008), this new form of governing is better suited to solve present societal issues, such as the integration controversy mentioned before. However, there are many different terms and definitions used in order to explain this phenomenon.

Stoker (1998), for example, used the term ‘governance’ and structured his paper around five propositions to clear up its definition. According to him, governance is an institutional form of decision-making whereby actors are drawn from, as well as beyond the state. He claimed that these different actors are dependent in terms of power. Besides, he argued that governance changes the playing field for tackling social and economic issues. This tackling of issues can be achieved without the power of the government to command, or use its authority. Lastly, he identifies governance as being about self-governing networks of actors. As can be seen from these proposition, Stoker (1998) saw governance as a moving away from the state as a central actor and towards a more cooperative decision-making structure.

Additionally, a number of other definitions are collected to further clarify the concept of ‘governance’. First, Schmitter defined governance as follows:

“Governance is a method/mechanism for dealing with a broad range of problems/conflicts in which actors regularly arrive at mutually satisfactory and binding decisions by negotiating with each other and co-operating in the implementation of these decisions” (Schmitter, 2002, p. 52)

Again, one can see the importance of cooperation being underlined. Another explanation of the term, focused on the United States, is by Kettl:

(11)

11 “Governance entails a new set of processes and institutions—often nongovernmental ones—that have become more central to public policy. In doing the peoples’ work to a large and growing degree, American governments share responsibility with other levels of government, with private companies, and with nonprofit organizations.” (Kettl, 2000, p. 488)

In this explanation, one can see the power dependence that Stoker (1998) mentioned in his paper as well.

Also, there are comparable conceptualizations using somewhat different terms, such as network governance, urban governance, and collective governance. Although these theories sometimes have a slightly narrower focus than governance, we can find the same characteristics with regard to governing-style in these theories. To clear up the confusion surrounding this broad concept of ‘governance’, Kersbergen and Waarden (2004, pp. 151-152) summarized these common characteristics. The first common component these theories share is that the starting point of the various theories is pluricentric, rather than unicentric. This refers to the shift from a total focus on the central states, towards the acknowledgement of a diverse set of actors in public policy decision-making. These actors can be drawn from various levels of government, as well as from the private sector. Second, the authors underlined the distinct role of networks. According to Kersbergen and Waarden (2004, p. 152), these networks are structured in a non-hierarchical way. The actors are interdependent, since they are trying to achieve a goal that is impossible to achieve separately, but they are relatively autonomous at the same time. Finally, they pointed out that the process of decision-making is no longer based on coercion, command and control (from the central state), but rather on negotiation, cooperation and alliance formation.

From now on, the term ‘governance’ will be used, meaning the concept characterized by above-outlined characteristics. However, the problem that we try to investigate in this thesis is whether this new governing style is better suited to resolve complex, controversial societal issues (in this case; immigrant integration) than the previous top-down structure was. In order to get a better idea of this, in the next sections an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of this governance structure as opposed to the traditional one as suggested by the academic literature on this topic will be provided.

2.3 Period of transition

One should keep in mind, however, that the shift from a traditional top-down to a governance structure is a process. Such a transition in governing-style cannot simply happen overnight. It takes time for structures to be changed, adjusted and accepted by the affected actors. Besides, in this paper, the shift of governance in the sphere of immigration is being examined. The controversy

(12)

12 surrounding the topic is relatively recent, and the large influx of refugees in 2015 in the Netherlands asked for a quite fast, ad-hoc transition towards governance. One can view the shift towards governance in light of the theory of Kurt Lewin, in order to account for this process of change. It can be argued that the shift can be compared to implementing change in an organization.

To make sense of the management of change, many theories have been developed. One scholar that is put forward as the intellectual father of change management is Kurt Lewin (Burnes, 2004). He developed a three-step change theory that is helpful in understanding, analyzing, and bringing about successful change in a group, an organization, or society (Kritsonis, 2005). This change can be both desirable or necessary. Either way, one wants to have a smooth and successful implementation of change.

According to Lewin (1947), the process of change consists of three phases. The first step is described as ‘unfreezing’. In this phase, the status quo needs to be unfrozen in order to enable change. Steps need to be taken to make sure that the implementation of change is successful. Clear communication is extremely important in this regard (Lewin, 1947). The persons affected by the change need to be made aware of the need for change. Also, trust-building and recognizing potential problems together is essential in this phase. This ensures a proper preparation for the coming change among affected parties and/or people and increasing the odds of a successful change effort (Levasseur, 2001).

Then, the second phase is described as either ‘movement’ or ‘transition’. This is the phase where the desired change is to be implemented (by the management of the organization). Relatively high levels of resistance can be expected in this phase (Lewin, 1947). The better the communication in the first stage, the more the resistance will be curbed in the second one. However, engagement in the change process remains important (Levasseur, 2001). According to Gill (2003), leadership is crucial in this stage. Effective leadership can bring about contentment and create commitment to the change through communication vision, strategy, and motivation and inspiration (Gill, 2003). As explained by Gill (2003), resistance to change often has an emotional base. Therefore, a leader is necessary to ‘show the way’. In other words; to make use of one’s personal power in order to win the hearts and minds of people by convincing them of the vision behind the change (Gill, 2003). This will avoid alienation and will establish a sense of engagement.

Then, the third step is termed ‘refreezing’ (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005). This is the stage where the implemented change will be made sustainable. This is done through the integration of the new values into the traditional structure of the organization (Kritsonis, 2004).

These possible aspects of a process of change should be taken into account when analyzing the effectiveness of governance, since it might have implications for the outcome of the research conducted in this thesis.

(13)

13 2.4 Benefits of governance

Governance emerged in reaction to the insufficient problem-solving capacity of national governments. In the following section, arguments will be outlined that explain why this could indeed be the case.

2.4.1 Diversity

The involvement of various actors in the decision-making process brings about collaborative advantages (Huxham, Vangen, Huxham, and Eden, 2000). First of all, the actors can share in scarce resources. This can be in terms of financial resources, but also in terms of practical resources and knowledge. As outlined by Head (2008), wicked problems are not constrained to organizational boundaries. Governance can prove a solution in this regard, by cutting across agency boundaries. For example, actors can share the financial burden, in order to spread the risk of certain expensive projects (Huxham et al., 2000). For example, in times of a crisis or economic downturn, the national government might be politically inclined to introduce spending cuts. Funding for new projects will be difficult to obtain, as various political parties are going to have to agree on the decision (Papadopoulos, 2003). Governance can be a way to work around this problem by sharing the financial burden. What might be even more important, however, is the sharing of other scarce resources, such as specific skills. Present-day issues can be highly complex and solutions can be ambiguous. In this kind of environment, it is highly preferable to cooperate among actors with specific skills. This will enhance chances of tackling the issue properly. Besides, actors will be involved in the process, instead of simply hired without having a say in the course of events surrounding the project, making them more inclined to actually commit these skills to the project.

However, not simply the actors involved in the governance network need to be engaged. As argued by Head (2008), it is important that other stakeholders, such as citizens that will be affected by the policy, are engaged in the process as well. In this way it will be easier to identify the problem, and possible solutions, since a better understanding of the situation will be reached by consulting experts by experience. Besides, by engaging such stakeholders, a relationship of trust can be build. This will enhance the chances of getting a proper understanding of the core of the problem among the involved stakeholders, making it in turn easier to find a fitting solution.

Another argument that is often put forward is that of learning opportunities (Huxham et al., 2000). Particularly, private actors are often said to have more efficient governing structures and practices than public actors. The public parties are able to adopt this as well. Besides, the overall efficiency of the project can be enhanced if these better practices and structures are implemented. Additionally, the diversity of actors leads to a greater pool of knowledge. Different actors might have

(14)

14 a different view, different target group or context information, and different skill sets. If these are all pooled together, problem-solving capacity increases. According to Connelly and Kelloway (2003), however, it is important to maintain a healthy knowledge-sharing culture among the different parties, since this influences the level of knowledge-sharing. This culture depends mostly on the attitude of the management towards knowledge-sharing.

Also, oftentimes actors will be involved that have a more local base, further increasing the contextual knowledge of a specific problem. This is an advantage over a governing style where the central state decides on policies, since this state has less on-the-ground knowledge and information about the context of the project they want to run.

2.4.2 Adaptability

The adaptability of governance forms of policy-making is closely linked to the stakeholder engagement mentioned in the previous subsection. The form of governance as described in this thesis leaves relatively more room for stakeholder input than the traditional form of government would (APSC, 2012). This is because stakeholders are more closely involved in the policy-making process, and will therefore feel more engaged and committed. Hence, there is a bigger chance of getting proper input. This feedback can be incorporated into the policy. However, frequent evaluation of the policy and the problem is needed in order to receive this feedback. On-the-ground intelligence and views of various actors can be gathered here (APSC, 2012). Thus, the learning opportunities mentioned before is not only useful in the process of creation, but also in policy-adaptation.

2.4.3 Room for experimentation

Policy-makers need room for experimentation in order to tackle the complex problems. Due to the high degree of complexity, policy-makers need to be able to try a certain approach and subsequently see which aspects works and which do not. However, this level of freedom is hard to achieve in the traditional government form with respect to policy-making. Namely, experimentation comes with a high risk of failure. In democracies, politicians want to prevent this, and are reluctant to experimentation due to electoral pressures (Head, 2008). Their desire to be re-elected is an important driver regarding public policy. Thus, this curbs their ability (and/or willingness) to experiment.

These electoral pressures faced in traditional policy-making styles causes other problems as well. Due to electoral constraints, politicians tend to focus on relatively visible and tangible aspects of a certain problem. This in contrast with fixating on long-term and total solutions for the whole

(15)

15 problem, which would be most desirable. However, in terms of electoral gains, politicians benefit from ‘cherry-picking’. In other words; by tackling solvable, visible (parts of) a problem. In this manner, a politician can profile him- or herself as decisive and capable of solving problems (Head, 2008). However, in the long term this may not solve much, since problem get tackled only partially, or are ignored altogether.

This narrow focus on sub-problems and ‘quick wins’ does not only fail to fix a problem entirely. It has a high tendency of generating undesirable side-effects as well (APSC, 2012). The example to explain this phenomenon is taken from the paper by the APSC (2012). The problem is obesity among schoolchildren. A visible and tangible solution in this regard would be to introduce solely healthy foods and lunches in the school canteens. In the eyes of the voter the politician may be seen as a decisive politician with a hands-on mentality, due to this solution. However, the side-effect may be that, instead of lunching at school, the children skip their lunch and get junk food on the way home. As is understood, the problem will not be solved and now has a new dimension.

The great advantage of governance is that it can work around these electoral constraints. First of all, there are many different actors involved. Therefore, a ‘quick win’ will be less likely, and success will be more divided among the various parties. This will reduce the appeal of implementing such a partial solution. Besides, many of the actors involved in the governance network are not bound by voters. Therefore, one can expect more experimentation in this new form of governance, enhancing the chances of finding a fitting solution.

2.5 Drawbacks of governance

On the other hand, one can also distinguish some complexities accompanying the new form of governing. These will be outlined in the following section.

2.5.1 Accountability problem

Governance refers to a policy style where actors are interdependent and there is a non-hierarchical structure. This has certain advantages, such as resource pooling and learning opportunities. However, this characteristic has its downsides too.

In the traditional, top-down, hierarchical structure of policy-making, it was clear and indisputable who was responsible for certain policies, namely; the central state. The state could in fact be held accountable through periodic elections. Citizens were able to voice concerns or opposition through their vote (Kersbergen & Waarden, 2004). However, this changes in a structure of interdependence, non-hierarchy, and diffused power. First, it is hard to establish who exactly is responsible for certain policy outcomes. Besides, actors of the private sphere are often hard, or even

(16)

16 impossible, to be held accountable by the people (Zürn, 2004). This can be marked a downside of governance, especially with regard to issues that bring about much controversy and different views.

2.5.2 Problems of consensus

As explained by Provan and Kenis (2008), another downside of governance can result from the need to reach a consensus among different actors. The decision-making process in a governance structure is based on negotiation and cooperation, which can be difficult among a broad range of actors. However, this depends on two important aspect of the network. First of all, the level of trust is essential (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Low levels of trust will most likely impede consensus-reaching. Actors are not certain of each other’s’ intentions and will be less willing to reveal and share resources for example. Second, the level of goal alignment is of great importance too. If the common goal is similar, or the same as, the actor’s personal goals, consensus will be relatively easy to reach. If, however, goals do not align, actors will be inclined to fight for their own goal instead of the common one, complicating consensus-reaching. Thus, consensus-reaching among the different actors can be complicated, but this depends on the level of trust and goal alignment in the structure.

2.6 Immigrant integration

One of the controversial policy issues, which was discussed before in this thesis, is immigrant integration. In the following section will be outlined why this is such a complex issue, together with the importance of proper integration according to the author of this thesis. This will be a crucial aspect to understand in order to be able to evaluate the suitability of governance with respect to this specific problem.

2.6.1 A ‘wicked’ problem

In this thesis, the shift in governance is said to have emerged due to the increasingly complex context of policy-making. One issue with such a high complexity is immigration and more specifically immigrant integration. Following, it will be explained more thoroughly why exactly this is such a complicated issue by using the concept of ‘wicked’ problems. As mentioned by Koppenjan and Klijn (2004), wicked problems pose a specific challenge for national governments in terms of problem-solving capacity, at least for the following reasons:

First, Weber and Khademian (2008) explained that wicked problems are unstructured. Complexity and uncertainty are increased due to the difficulty of identification of causes and effects of the problem and solution. Therefore, the process of policy-making is harder, since there will be little consensus on the solution. Besides, the problem itself may be constantly changing (Head, 2008).

(17)

17 The same holds for immigration; the causes and effects of immigration are hard to identify. As stated by Castles and Miller (2009), immigrant flows are hard to forecast. War and poor economic conditions are identified as causes, but what and when this will mean in terms of immigrant influxes is highly uncertain. Besides, the right approach to these flows are difficult to determine as well. This becomes apparent in the lack of consent among EU-members with respect to burden sharing, border protection and durable solutions in the current refugee crisis. Besides, the effects of integration are debated. On the one hand, scholars and politicians argue that proper integration leads to immigrants contributing positively to the host country’s economy and culture. One the other hand, people are scared that providing too many privileges for refugees will work as a pull factor for other immigrants, leading to an ever-growing influx of immigrants. However, later in this thesis the benefits of integration will be outlined.

Additionally, wicked problems are caught up in a web of interconnected, overlapping problems, cutting across multiple domains and levels of government. This will not only generate high levels of uncertainty, it will also lead to conflicting solutions (Weber & Khademian, 2008). A solution to one problem can cause trouble with regard to tackling another problem. In case of immigrant integration, we can see that it will cut across multiple domains. Integration will not only influence the economic sphere, but the social-cultural sphere too. Besides, when you zoom in on economic integration, this will overlap with another problem; unemployment of natives. A phrase often heard is “the immigrants are stealing our jobs” (Legrain, 2014). This phrase is an expression of the fear that many natives of European countries have nowadays with regard to immigration; a fear that national governments are inclined to take into account. It is debatable whether immigrants and natives are complements or substitutes in terms of labor force and thus whether immigrants are indeed stealing native jobs (Legrain, 2014). However, regardless of the soundness of the argument; the fear is a reality and here is where we see a conflict in solving integration problems on the one hand and native unemployment on the other. Also, immigrant integration is cutting across different levels of government. Namely, national governments attempt to curb the inflows of asylum seekers. They often try to reduce the country’s attractiveness for asylum seekers to the bare minimum, as we see happening in countries such as the Netherlands (Tuenter, 2015). However, at the same time, the lower-level governments simply want to solve their local issues and are not pre-occupied with the attractiveness of their nation as a host country (Dirks, 2016). The immigration issue does not create the impression of it being solved naturally and without interference; another characteristic of a wicked problem (Weber & Khademian, 2008).

Another aspect of wickedness that is put forward by Head (2008) is the fact that the involved stakeholder might disagree to such a great extent that a solution is near-impossible to reach. Besides, the knowledge base that is required to identify and solve the particular problem is either weak,

(18)

18 fragmented or highly contested (Head, 2008). Both these characteristics can be found in the immigration problem. First of all, as can be seen as soon as we turn on the television, is the disagreement among various actors with regard to immigration. As mentioned before, it is debatable whether immigrants are an economic gain, or an economic burden to the host society (Legrain, 2014). There is disagreement about the amount of refugees and immigrants a country can handle. You see Merkel’s “Wir Schaffen Das” versus the Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán that is closing its borders. Politicians have such opposing standpoints that solutions seem extremely difficult to reach. We see this disagreement in the academic literature as well. The same economic debate is going on in academic spheres. Additionally, there is debate about the refugee and immigrant integration. Some scholars argue that immigrants should fully assimilate into the host society. On the other hand, scholars contest this claims and argue that immigrants should integrate to a certain extent, that leaves room for them to maintain their identity and cultural habits. The knowledge base is thus contested and fragmented, making wicked problems even harder to tackle.

Additionally, Head (2008) mentioned in his paper another characteristic of a wicked problem. The solution to a wicked problem may be dependent on a shift of attitude and/or behavior among various stakeholders, while at the same time there is no great incentive or points of leverage to ensure this shift (Head, 2008). This is the case for integration issues as well. As will be argued in the next section, labor market integration is a crucial part of total integration. However, as argued by many different scholars (Kaas & Manger, 2012; Carlsson & Rooth, 2007; Reimers, 1983), discrimination against minorities in the labor market is still a reality in various Western countries. If this is indeed true, it can prove a substantial obstacle to proper immigrant integration. A great shift in attitude and behavior from the part of employers will be needed. However, as long as enough natives are willing to fulfill the job vacancies, incentives to change will be near-absent. Besides, if integration is to run smoothly, attitudes and behaviors of both immigrants and natives will need to change in some cases. Two crucial conditions for integration are the acceptance of newcomers by the native population, as well as the willingness to integrate of the immigrant. However, these attitudes consist of a web of entangled interests and emotions and are therefore resistant to change. Besides, we see many right-wing movements in many Western countries gaining electoral ground. This is definitely not an indication of a shift in attitudes and behavior and may mean we will have to wait for a long time for this shift to come.

(19)

19 2.6.2 Integration as a solution

The research of this thesis is focused on the suitability of governance regarding refugee integration policy-making. However; what exactly is the importance of a smooth-running process of integration? This will be explained in the current section.

As outlined by Favell (2003), integration can be explained as the process that happens after the migration. This entails the social change that arises in the host country, as well as the process of going from the past to some idealized social endpoint. Important aspects of integration consist of different things, from which a portion will be stated. A crucial aspect is basic legal and social protection by the state. However, anti-discrimination and equal opportunity is relevant as well. Also, access to health care, education and housing is an important condition (Favell, 2003).

Refugee integration can have an impact on both the national security, as well as the economy. First of all, low levels of integration can lead to radicalization and criminality among immigrants (King & Taylor, 2011). Following the terrorist attacks on the airport and metro station of the city of Brussels in March 2016, there was an outcry of criticism concerning the Belgian governments’ approach concerning integration policy. According to Blasic (2015) young immigrants in Belgium face a reality of daily confrontation with discrimination on the basis of race and religion. They are not offered the same opportunities in terms of access to the labor – and housing market. As explained by Awan (2013), this lack of integration often leads to self-identity issues and feelings of grievances towards the host society, which may eventually result in radicalization. The fear of terrorism is apparent in many countries, according to Morello (2016). Since many citizens link this threat to immigration, it leads to a cleavage in societies. In particular when considering the fact that many people in Western countries not only link terrorism to immigration, but to Muslims specifically (Alnatour, 2016). This leads to a stigmatization of a part of society, dividing it even further.

Another fear that divides societies over immigration issues is that of immigrants as an economic burden. This is built upon natives’ assumption that refugees will inevitably become an economic liability by their supposed reliance on the welfare system. Integration can, in this regard, be both a societal, as well as an economic solution. When faced with a greater accessibility to the labor market, refugees can become economically self-sufficient. In this way, the fear that refugees are unavoidably an economic burden can be curbed. At the same time, the prevention of welfare reliance will reduce fiscal costs for national governments with regard to refugees. Additionally, many refugees can be viewed as a human resource contributing to the national economy, due to their specific skill sets. For instance, the diversity in cultural and ethnic background can contribute to the problem-solving capacity in a certain company. Besides, refugees may possess skills that natives do not have, such as various language skills, and cultural knowledge. All in all, it is expected that the

(20)

20 proper integration of refugees has a positive impact on society, as well as on the economy, as compared to insufficient integration levels of refugees.

2.6.3 Hypothesis

Governance is put forward as a suitable tool with which to address wicked problems. As explained in section 2.6.1, refugee integration can be viewed as such a wicked problem. Thus, we are curious to see to what extent governance is indeed a suitable tool to address the problem of successful refugee integration into the labor market in the city of Amsterdam, zooming in on the covenant Amsterdam werkt voor iedereen.

After reviewing the literature on governance, it was found that there are both benefits and drawbacks to this new form of governing. Downsides to governance that are mentioned in the literature are the difficulty of indicating the accountable party, as well as problems with consensus reaching. On the other hand, it is argued that the involved parties benefit from knowledge sharing and that this governing form will be better than the traditional structure in terms of adaptability and room for experimentation. This is expected to be found while investigating the case as well.

(21)

21

3. Methodology

3.1 Type of research

In order to evaluate the research question as good as possible, a qualitative research approach was chosen. The context issue is highly complicated, which requires a different sensitivity to the empirical study of issues than the one obtained when using a quantitative approach (Flick, 2009). According to Flick (2009), local, temporal, situational narratives are required, instead of big, general theories and narratives. The qualitative research will consist of a case study, with data being generated through semi-structured interviews. The unit of analysis of this research is best described by the concept of ‘networks’.

3.2 Short case description and justification

A case study will be conducted in order to uncover the answer to the research question. According to Rowley (2002), a case study is a proper research method when there is still room for exploration. In the case of our examination of the new form of governing style, there are many different theories and conceptualizations. There has not yet been established one, general theory to describe the phenomenon. In this regard, a case can offer an open approach to the research question, preventing the research from cutting out important viewpoints, actors, and information. The Netherlands was chosen as the country of investigation, since we see many problems with regard to immigration on the national level, while at the same time pragmatic solutions on the local level. Therefore, this is an interesting field with regard to the research question.

The case that was chosen to investigate for this research is a covenant between different parties in the municipality of Amsterdam, named “Amsterdam werkt voor iedereen”. These parties have a wide variety of backgrounds. The local government, NGO’s, various educational institutions and commercial companies all signed the agreement. States are said to have a limited ability in controlling immigration. In recent decades, this has come to the forefront of scientific, as well as political debate, especially with the current refugee crisis being such a huge issue in the media, in politics, and among citizens. As we saw in the introduction of this thesis, there can be great disparity between local and national governments with regard to immigration issues, such as the Bed-Bad-Brood-solution. Another gap exists in the realm of refugee integration. In Amsterdam, various actors felt like not enough was done by the state to integrate refugees and curtail problems associated with immigrant integration. This is why the municipality of Amsterdam initiated a pilot with as its main purpose the fast integration of refugees into the labor market. This means that worker evaluations start earlier, and the actors work together in order to find a match between worker and employer. If

(22)

22 necessary, language classes are provided, in order to improve the changes of a match. Also, insights in potential lack of job-specific knowledge or skill can be discovered earlier. Refugees can be provided with suitable schooling or work experience opportunities. In order to achieve these goals, the covenant was initiated.

As explained in the theoretical framework, fast integration has many different advantages for all actors involved. On the one hand, refugees will be encouraged to become (financially) independent and integrated, increasing the chances of acceptance among natives as well. On the other hand, companies can benefit from the extra labor-skill that becomes available, in order to fill up their open vacancies.

This covenant is in line with the theory surrounding governance, which is why this agreement was chosen as case. Namely, there are various actors involved (for a list of all actors and their associated function, see Appendix 1), all working together in an interdependent structure in order to achieve a common goal. Besides, the policy was not initiated by the central state, but came from a more bottom-up structure. Lastly, there is no top-down, hierarchical structure, but a more network-based, interdependent governing approach. Besides, the municipality of Amsterdam has often proved to be a pioneer in public policy. Therefore, it is expected that this governance structure is representative for future agreements in other parts of the Netherlands.

3.3 Interviews

3.3.1 Semi-structured interview

When conducting an interview, one can take various approaches, such as structured, semi-structured and open. In this research, a semi-structured interview method was chosen to adopt. First of all there are many different actors involved in the project. These actors all adopt a relatively distinct position in the decision-making process. Therefore, it is undesirable to conduct a focused, structured interview, where all respondents are asked the exact same questions. The respondents’ backgrounds and positions are simply too different, and it will lead to a high likeliness of missing important information. Besides, before conducting the interviews, there is not yet a clear vision of the power balances within the network. This is an aspect of the research that might lead to interesting results regarding the research question, and we do not want to miss an opportunity to reveal these balances by controlling the room for deviation too much. However, we do want to make sure certain matters are specified and discussed with each respondent, which is why a fully open interview was renounced. Additionally, a semi-structured interview is an appropriate choice when one wants to investigate the ‘why’ of a phenomenon due to its flexibility (Fylan, 2005). In our case, we want to know how well the governance approach works, but also why and how it comes about.

(23)

23 3.3.2 Respondents

The respondents of this research can be divided into two groups; the first group are experts on the policy-making surrounding refugee integration. Three persons were interviewed, all with an advisory role in the process of policy-making and policy-implementation, familiar with governance structures such as the one investigated here. In this way, we hope to get a helicopter-view on the form of governance described in this study. Since these persons have no particular interest in the covenant or the pilot and its outcome, we hope to shed an objective light on the matter. Two of the persons interviewed work as policy- and governance advisor to the mayor of Amsterdam, both specialized in the field of refugees. Another person is an advisor and founder of the platform “Opnieuw Thuis”, initiated by the Dutch national government, in order to inform and advise various actors involved in the housing of refugees.

The second group of respondents are persons from the different parties that signed the covenant “Amsterdam werkt voor iedereen”. In order to get an overview of the efficiency, potential, and pitfalls of the new governing style with regard to refugee integration into the labor market described in this research, it is tried to interview a wide range of representatives of the various parties. In practice, this meant that it was decided to categorize the different parties in the covenant. The four categories are: public actors, NGO’s, educational institutions and commercial companies. These categories are based on the similarity of goals, interests and place in society of the involved actors. In the category ‘public actors’ two persons of the economic department of the municipality were interviewed, since the covenant was initiated from this department. In the category NGO’s, we spoke to a project manager in labor market assistance of the voluntary organization VluchtelingenWerk Amstel tot Zaan. In the category educational institutions, representatives of various schools in Amsterdam were interviewed. These were three persons working in the departments concerned with refugee integration of Regionaal opleidingencentrum Amsterdam, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, and the Free University. In the category of commercial companies three different persons working in the departments responsible for social development were interviewed. These persons are employed at the following companies: ManPower Group, Van Ede & Partners, and Randstad. All these companies are specialized in Human Resource services. Besides these companies, the covenant was signed by a platform named “The Refugee Talent Hub” as well. This is a platform where recruiters and refugees can meet each other either online or through the matching event. Speaking to representatives of this platform might have been a useful addition to the research, since it can be seen as a separate network inside the network. Unfortunately however, after various attempts, the platform indicated to not have time for an interview.

(24)

24 In order to stimulate the respondents to answer freely to the questions asked, it was decided to not include names in our analysis. Thus, the interviews are anonymous. Also, we did not speak to representatives of every single party that signed the covenant, as is explained above. This was mainly because these parties indicated that they were not willing or able to schedule an appointment. For a few of the parties we decided simultaneously, after e-mail contact, that an interview would be either unnecessary or not useful. Besides, since the research is focused on the policy side of the integration issue, it was decided to focus on actors involved in setting up or implementing these policies and not the persons affected by it (i.e. the refugees themselves).

3.4 Generalization, validity, reliability

As stated by Rowley (2002), generalization is quite troublesome in case studies, since these are by definition context-specific. However, it was tried to find a case study as representative for other cases as possible. It is believed that this case is in compliance with the theory that was found about the subject, in terms of actors and structure. Besides, immigration issues are in the theoretical framework explained to be controversial and complex. Therefore, it is expected that researches will find similar results regarding governance for other controversial and complex policy issues. However, due to time limitations, it was decided to not conduct a cross-case study. This will lessen the validity of the research, since we cannot present different cases with similar outcomes, or a counter-case. Also, the choice of semi-structured interviews as opposed to structured ones, will lessen the reliability, since there is a lower chance of exact data replication. However, it is expected that this will be compensated by the increase in relevant information that is forecasted to be collected by using this interview style.

(25)

25

4. Analysis

In the past few years there was a large spurt in migrants arriving at European borders, with hundreds of thousands of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea to arrive in Europe, leaving this period with the name ‘European Refugee Crisis’. Due to the ongoing wars in the Middle-East and Africa many people saw no other option than to leave their homes behind and flee to a safe country. One of these safe countries is the Netherlands. As can be seen from figure 1, asylum applications even exceeded the last large inflow following the Yugoslav Wars. Numbers skyrocketed in 2015. Immigration problems can be described as ‘wicked’, since these problems are highly complex and uncertain. This led Dutch politicians to adopt the term ‘crisis’ as well.

Figure 1

Source: “Graph generated by using data from Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek”

As mentioned by the policy advisors interviewed, a crisis provides opportunities in terms of the policy-making process. That is to say, the traditional structures and rules do no longer suit the magnitude of the problem. Therefore, room arises for new, creative solutions. The involved actors are provided with larger freedom to experiment by the government, in the hope that a solution will be found shortly. Besides, in times of a crisis politicians are expected to act upon the situation by their voters (see: subsection 2.4.3). Thus, they are more willing to accept progressive approaches. All in all, this crisis was an opportunity for the new governing style to emerge in the field of refugee integration as well.

4.1 Governance in the Netherlands

The advisors pointed out several reasons as to why governance emerged as an alternative to a more traditional, top-down approach in the field of refugee integration. First of all, it was pointed out that

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07 20 09 20 11 20 13 20 15

Number of asylum requests

(26)

26 the new form of governing, where local actors and local initiatives play a large role, works faster, and in a more flexible manner than the traditional one. While national governments and the European Union were still evaluating the problems and their solutions, local actors were already facing the reality of refugees at their train stations. A solution had to come at once and municipalities all over the Netherlands decided to take matters into their own hands by initiating new forms of cooperation, such as collaboration with non-public actors.

Besides, the respondents indicated that many initiatives surrounding refugee support by non-public parties are born out of human solidarity. Many actors in society see the need for refugee integration and support and are willing to contribute to this cause. Additionally, it can be used to reveal to the national government that there is indeed support among society for refugee integration. This as an opposing force to the right-wing political sounds that we hear more and more nowadays.

Lastly, one of the interviewees stated that the Dutch national government tries to change its traditional role, by curbing its leadership- and controlling tasks in general. This stems from the wish to create an inclusive, democratic state, where the government does not control and monitor every part of society. The government wants to provide local initiatives, local governments and other organizations with a certain degree of freedom in performing specific tasks. The discourse changed with it, going from using terms such as ‘customer-client-relationships’ towards ‘partnerships’. More local, pluricentric, network-like partnerships are seen as a proper alternative to fulfill some of these tasks, such as refugee integration.

4.2 Assessment of governance in the Netherlands

In order to get an overview why governance is more often implemented as a governing style in the Netherlands, the advisors were asked to name the pros and cons of this form of policy-making and policy-implementation. This entails both expected benefits and drawbacks, as well as those encountered by experience. Note, however, that this is the opinion of only three consultants. Nevertheless, it is believed it is a useful complement to the research conducted, since the advisors have encountered and evaluated various projects with different governing styles. Besides, one of our respondents has a role focused on the European Union. It is expected that this will broaden the view and experience even further, since he/she can compare different states. Therefore, it is expected that they are able to make a valuable contribution in terms of the assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of governance.

First, both respondents named knowledge sharing as a valuable aspect of governance. This sharing can be either incidental or intended. Either way, in a governing style with multiple different actors, with different backgrounds, interests, and viewpoints, working together, know-how can be

(27)

27 bundled. This, in turn, will lead to a better identification and evaluation of the problem and its corresponding solutions.

Besides, in the new governing style studied in this thesis more local governments and other actors are involved in the decision-making process. According to one of the interviewees it is easier to create public acceptance and support for a certain policy on a local level, as compared to the national level. Politicians at the national level often face large electoral and other political pressures. Their electoral base is bigger and more diverse, according to the respondent. For example, a national politician has to deal with voters all over the Netherlands, from the country side to the large cities. For example, the interviewee stated that despite the multicultural character of the city of Amsterdam, and the political pressures that exist on the local level, it is easier to create a support base for certain political decisions there. This is because this advisor stated that participation among a smaller group of people is more feasible. The importance of this participation was stressed in the example, by comparing the Netherlands to Greece. As explained by the policy advisor interviewed, if the local government in Athens wants to renew a playground, they simply knock down the old one, without involving the citizens in the plans and the subsequent steps. This can create an outrage, since the local residents believe the neighborhood playground is to be removed permanently, not knowing there are plans for a completely new one. In this way, no support base is created, and citizens might feel unheard and discontent. In Amsterdam, on the other hand, a similar renewal of a playground will be associated with various steps of participation, such as informing, consultation, counsel, coproduction, and co-decision (“Vijf niveau’s van”, 2015). According to the respondent, this will help in creating a larger support base among citizens. The same holds for the involvement of local initiatives, companies, and other actors. Since they, together with citizens, get a voice in the decision-making process. Besides, support, as well as a sense of responsibility will be build. This is an enormously important aspect in refugee integration, since the success of integration partly depends on the stance and level of acceptance of native residents.

However, as indicated by the advisors, there are some pitfalls in the execution of this form of governing with regard to refugee integration into the labor market. First of all, the interviewees stated that there might be a lack of goal alignment in the cooperation between public and non-public actors. According to them, the public agencies have a more societal role, thus their goals will be more focused on societal goals, such as equality. Commercial companies, on the other hand, are always bound to their commercial goals to some extent. These firms have the need to make profit in order to continue to exist. Therefore, commercial companies are by all advisors described as ‘problematic to work with’ in issues surrounding refugee integration. As the representative of “Opnieuw Thuis” mentioned this group is often not seen as a very profitable one in the housing market. As indicated

(28)

28 by another advisor, this is the same for the job market. However, in case there are vacancies that cannot be filled by natives, this group becomes more desirable.

This lack of goal alignment can influence trust levels within the network as well, as illustrated by one of the interviewees. For example, if goals among the various actors differ, and this is not clearly communicated, conflicts may arise. Suppose a commercial company is sharing its knowledge about a particular field in terms of target group with the rest of the network. However, since the goal of the company is to make profit, they might focus mostly on the target group they are serving. As the other actors might not have additional knowledge on the target groups, they might follow the expertise of this one company. If, in hindsight, other actors find out that there were actually other important target groups that were outside the range of the business of that particular company that they missed, this might give rise to a feeling of distrust towards the commercial company. And, in turn, on other commercial companies that they might have to work with later on.

Also, in order for a diverse, non-hierarchical form of governing to work, and to reap the benefits of it, it is important that the cooperation is based on equality. The process of decision-making should not be based on coercion, command, and control, but rather on negotiation, cooperation, and alliance (see: section 2.2). This creates an environment of trust, where the involved actors are willing to help each other by sharing knowledge and resources. Besides, actors will be more engaged, and feel more responsible for the outcome of the policy (see: section 2.4.1). As was argued in the interviews, however, this is often not the case in practice. Often, there is one central actor in the network that has the most power, creating a hierarchical structure. When we zoom in on the case later, we will go deeper into the question of why and how this happens.

4.3 Case description

With the large refugee inflows, especially in 2015, the city of Amsterdam decided to look more into the integration of refugees in the city and possible solutions to integration problems. As can be seen in figure 2, the majority of refugees arriving in Amsterdam are reliant on welfare benefits. This continues for many years. As can be seen from the table, among status holders that have been living in Amsterdam 11-15 years, still 38% belongs to the group of welfare recipients. This in comparison to the average in Amsterdam of 7.7%; a huge difference (“Vluchtelingenmonitor”, 2016).

(29)

29 Figure 2

Source: BRP IOS

This is a concern of many native citizens: that refugees are solely an economic burden to our country. Thus, the city decided it was time to curb this tendency.

As Kajsa Ollongren, city councilor of Amsterdam, argued in here appearance on “De Wereld Draait Door” (“Kajsa Ollongren: alle”, 2015), she disagrees on national governments’ policy regarding the integration of refugees. The state wants to maintain a certain degree of unattractiveness for asylum seekers, expecting to curb the refugee inflow in that way. However, Ollongren indicated to see chances in the Amsterdam labor market for refugees, and she is willing to take them. The municipality of Amsterdam has come up with ways in which the integration process can be both smoothened and accelerated, she argued.

This is why the city of Amsterdam initiated the “Amsterdamse Aanpak Statushouders”, meant to assist newcomers on their way to work, education, or both. One component of the Amsterdamse Aanpak is a pilot in which status holders take an assessment while still in the asylum center. It is noted that status holders that are assigned to live in Amsterdam already have a waiting time of up to 10 or 12 months before being housed (Bakker, ketensessie). Usually, when these refugees start their life in Amsterdam, they start on welfare benefits. The municipality came up with a plan to prevent this process. Instead of letting these people simply wait in the asylum center before being housed, they introduced ‘meaningful waiting’. Integration assessments and assistance starts when the status holders are still in their waiting period but are already assigned to live in the city, as opposed to when they get a place in Amsterdam. This accelerates the integration process. The base of assistance is broad and consists of various aspects, such as language courses, matching events with employers, vacancy linking, and coaching in order to guide the person to the labor market. Also, assistance can help to lead to people to education, other support programs, or health care.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Welfare system reliance

Welfare system reliance of (former) status holders in Amsterdam