Master of Arts Thesis Euroculture
University of Krakow (First semester) University of Groningen (Second semester)
Mainstreaming Immigrant Integration Governance at City Level A case study of Gdańsk (PL), Hamburg (DE), and Liverpool (UK)
Anna Köppel Student number first university: S4701186 Student number second university:1174232 +49 157 571 468 64 / email@example.com
Dr. Karolina Czerska-Shaw Dr. Senka Neuman-Stanivukovic
MA Programme Euroculture Declaration
I, Anna Köppel hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Mainstreaming immigrant integration governance at city level: A case study of Gdańsk (PL), Hamburg (DE), and Liverpool (UK)”, submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of other authors in any form (e.g., ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography.
I declare that the written (printed and bound) and the electronic copy of the submitted MA thesis are identical.
I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.
In case the research process involved participants (especially participants from vulnerable communities and populations), please ensure that the following boxes can be ticked before submitting the thesis, or tick the third box, if not applicable to your project:
☒ I declare that I have obtained the required permission from the relevant ethics committees of the two universities supervising my thesis concerning my research proposal in order to proceed with proposed research involving participants;
☒ I declare that I have obtained informed consent from these participants and that the consent forms are stored lawfully and in accordance with the rules of the two universities supervising my thesis.
☐ The two items above do not apply to this project.
Mainstreaming has been introduced as a fitting strategy and policy tool in difficult policy areas when specific, targeted measures are no longer feasible or effective. In the field of immigrant integration, a ‘trend’ towards mainstreaming has been argued for in the context of a shift towards interculturalism and the ‘assimilationist turn’ in European integration governance. The purpose of this thesis is to study local governance approaches in three European cities to determine whether mainstreaming as a strategy or policy tool is reflected in their local immigrant integration governance. To this end, the immigrant integration governance of the three port cities Gdańsk (PL), Hamburg (DE) and Liverpool (UK) is studied by means of a policy analysis, using qualitative document analysis and expert interviews. In doing so, this thesis highlights that mainstreaming is reflected in all three local governance approaches. Key features of mainstreaming such as intended generic policies, the orientation towards a pluralistic society as well as polycentric governance can be identified to various extents. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance at the local level and provide a critical reflection on mainstreaming and its potential. Moreover, by presenting facilitating and hindering factors for mainstreaming immigrant integration governance this thesis is of interest both for academia as well as for local policymakers.
Keywords: mainstreaming, integration governance, immigrant integration, local turn, public policy
Table of Contents
1. Cities and Immigrant Integration 6
1.1. The role of cities in immigrants’ integration 7
1.2. Defining ‘immigrant’, ‘integration’ and ‘local immigrant integration
1.3. Definition of local immigrant integration governance 12 1.4. Intercultural versus multicultural approaches to immigrant integration
2. Immigrant integration governance in Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool 17
2.1. Gdańsk 17
2.2. Hamburg 19
2.3. Liverpool 21
3. Mainstreaming immigrant integration governance 25
3.1. Gender Mainstreaming 26
3.2. Mainstreaming as policy instrument and strategy 28 3.3. Mainstreaming immigrant integration governance 29 3.3.1. Conceptualising mainstreaming immigrant integration governance 30 3.3.2. The linkage between mainstreaming and interculturalism 34 3.3.3. Mainstreaming immigrant integration at the local level 35
4. Methodology 37
4.1. Selection of case studies 38
4.2. Qualitative document analysis of local policy documents 40
4.3. Expert interview 44
5. Presentation and discussion of the results 50
5.1. Reflected narratives and understandings of mainstreaming immigrant
integration governance 50
5.1.1. Mainstreaming as explicitly articulated policy tool or strategy 51 5.1.2. Mainstreaming as shift towards generic policies including the
incorporation of specific needs into generic services 52 5.1.3. Mainstreaming reflected in an orientation towards a pluralist society 59 5.1.4. Mainstreaming reflected in power-sharing, including a fair representation
of immigrants 65
5.2. Approaches to integration governance at the local level and rationales behind
mainstreaming immigrant integration governance 50
5.3. Facilitating and hindering factors for mainstreaming local immigrant
integration governance 75
5.4. Reflection on the ‘concept’ of mainstreaming, its framing as such and its
6. Conclusion 82
Annex I: Interview guide government officials i
Annex II: Interview guide staff NGOs/CSOs iv
Annex III: Codebook - Qualitative Content Analysis vi
The reason for conducting this research stems from my interest in the topic of asylum and migration policies and immigrant integration policies. I am passionate about questions on how we envisage our societies to live in diversity, how we envisage the future of our societies in cities, and what strategies are used to address the aspirations and challenges of our ‘age of migration’*, which includes subsequent increasingly superdiverse societies.
When I came across the policy tool and strategy of 'mainstreaming' and the first contributions in the field of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance, I was keen to find out if mainstreaming immigrant integration might be a remedy tool to address increasingly diverse needs, and if it is indeed reflected in local immigrant integration governances.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Karolina Czerska-Shaw and Dr. Senka Neuman-Stanivukovic, for their guidance and supervision throughout the process of writing, and for their careful insights on the topic. Moreover, I could not fail to thank my family and friends, who always encouraged me and have unconditionally supported me throughout this academic journey.
I would also like to extend my thanks to all the participants in my interviews. Their willingness to provide information and their openness, both during the interview and beyond, have contributed significantly to the results of this master thesis.
* For instance, see Stephen Castles, Hein Gysbert de Haas, and Mark J. Miller, “The Age of Migration:
International Population Movements in the Modern World”, 5th ed (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).
“Now is the best time to address the challenges of migration and use its potential”1 stated Paweł Adamowicz*, former Mayor of Gdańsk in the Preface of the Immigrant Integration Model of Gdańsk.2 The immigrant integration concepts of Gdańsk, Hamburg and Liverpool – which are the subject of analysis of this thesis – contain a myriad of similar statements, framing migration both as a challenge and potential to be addressed by city’s authorities and society.
Migration and immigrant integration are at the top of the political agenda in most European countries and pose profound challenges for Europe. In the recent past, the increased influx of immigrants to European countries – particularly in 2015 and 2016 – and the current rising numbers of refugees due to the war in Ukraine, have had a structural impact on the development of immigration governance and immigrant integration governance in European countries.3 While on the one hand the governance of immigration is increasingly Europeanized, on the other hand the governance of immigrant integration is increasingly localized.4 In the course of the so-called ‘local turn’, local governments have moved from being concerned with merely implementing policies to being actors actively involved in policy development. Moreover, the changing nature of migration- related diversity and increasing superdiversity in cities pose new opportunities and challenges.5 The emphasis on the increasing role of local governments in facilitating immigrant integration questions how cities deal with this growing responsibility.
A recent shift from multiculturalist towards interculturalist approaches in immigrant integration governance has occurred, especially at the city level. This is also reflected in the growing number of ‘intercultural cities’. Thereby, the intercultural
1 Gdansk City Hall, “Immigrant Integration Model”, (Gdansk: Gdansk City Hall, Social Development Department, 2016), 2.
*Paweł Adamowicz was mayor of Gdansk from 1998 until his death in 2019. He was known as a liberal, progressive figure and for his pro-immigration stance. In 2019, he was killed in an assassination attempt, whereas it remains unclear whether this was a politically motivated murder.
2 Ibid., 2
3 Peter Scholten, “Beyond Migrant Integration Policies: Rethinking the Urban Governance of Migration- Related Diversity“, Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, no. 1 (March 2018), 19.
4 Peter Scholten and Rinus Penninx, “The Multilevel Governance of Migration and Integration”, in Integration Processes and Policies in Europe, ed. Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas and Rinus Penninx, IMISCOE Research Series (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016), 91–108, doi: 10.1007/978-3- 319-21674-4_6.
5 Peter Scholten, “Beyond Migrant Integration Policies”, 14.
narrative has been introduced as a remedy, being well-suited to address some of the shortcomings of the multiculturalist approaches which dominated immigrant integration governance until the 2010s in most European countries.6 Against this background of a policy paradigm shift towards interculturalism, mainstreaming emerged as policy tool and strategy and as driver for the shift itself.7,8 Mainstreaming, primarily known from the field of gender equality, is understood as a policy shift from specific, centralized policies to generic and polycentric ones, ultimately aiming at the creation of a pluralist society.
Applied to immigrant integration, mainstreaming would entail incorporating both the perspective of non-immigrants and immigrants into all policies, programs, and projects to achieve equality and target policies more effectively to all citizens. Scholars, such as Collett and Petrovic, Scholten and van Breugel, or Zapata-Barrero advocate for mainstreaming as fitting strategy and policy tool for wicked policy areas, where specific policies are no longer feasible. Moreover, they argue that mainstreamed approaches can more easily respond to diverse needs, avoid long-term segregation and stigmatisation of immigrant groups.9
Thus, given the crucial importance of both cities and local governance in immigrant integration, and the potential of mainstreaming as a strategy and policy tool for immigrant integration governance, in this thesis, I investigate how Gdańsk, Hamburg and Liverpool approach immigrant integration in their local strategies and policies to investigate whether mainstreaming is indeed a new policy trend in immigrant integration governance in Europe. The focal question of my analysis hence is: how is mainstreaming - if at all - reflected in the integration governance of Gdańsk (PL), Hamburg (DE), and Liverpool (UK)? and how and why do the understandings of, and approaches to, immigrant integration governance differ. The analysis will be conducted by means of a policy analysis, consisting of a qualitative document analysis of local strategic and policy documents, and qualitative expert interviews with government authorities and staff of NGOs or CSOs respectively involved in the three cities’ local policy making and immigrant integration governance. The policy analysis contributes to a deeper
6 Peter Scholten, “Beyond Migrant Integration Policies”, 8.
7 Peter Scholten, Elizabeth Collett, and Milica Petrovic, “Mainstreaming Migrant Integration? A Critical Analysis of a New Trend in Integration Governance”, International Review of Administrative Sciences 83, no. 2 (June 2017): 284, doi: 10.1177/0020852315612902
8 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, “Mainstreaming and Interculturalism’s Elective Affinity”, in Mainstreaming Integration Governance, ed. P.W.A. Scholten and I. van Breugel (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 196, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-59277-0_9.
9 Peter Scholten, Elizabeth Collett, and Milica Petrovic, “Mainstreaming Migrant Integration?”, 284.
understanding of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance at the local level, as to grasp the rationales for the different approaches to immigrant integration in the respective cities, and to identify facilitating and hindering factors of mainstreaming. To do so, the following sub questions will be addressed and answered in detail:
1. How is mainstreaming reflected in the policy documents/statements (if at all) of the selected cities? And what does ‘mainstreaming’ mean in the three cities selected?
2. Why did the selected cities (not) opt for mainstreaming integration governance?
What do they try to achieve with their immigrant integration approach and how?
How do their approaches differ?
3. Which factors, according to local city experts facilitate mainstreaming integration policies in Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool? Which factors hinder mainstreaming integration policies in the selected cities?
Given the relatively recent appearance of mainstreaming in the field of immigrant integration, the body of literature is modest. Nevertheless, increasing attention is being dedicated to this issue, and the scholarship is growing. The existing literature on mainstreaming immigrant integration governance concentrates on contributions by the Migration policy institute [mpi] Europe and contributions within the EU-funded UPSTREAM project. Whereas the publication dates range from 2013 to 2022, all case studies I encountered during my research were conducted prior to 2016. Hence, there is a need for further, up-to-date research on mainstreaming immigration governance, particularly at the city level. Best to my knowledge, so far only one research study focuses on mainstreaming immigrant integration governance at the city level. The study by Jensen investigates how local authorities and service provider adapt to the demands of an increasing diverse population in France (Saint-Denis, Lyon), the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam), Poland (Warsaw, Poznan), Spain (Madrid, Barcelona), and the UK (Bristol, and the London Borough of Southwark).10 This thesis aims to fill this research gap, by adding a recent analysis and focusing on second-tier cities*, hence shedding light on trends in immigrant integration governance at the local level. By
10 Ole Jensen, “Immigrant Integration Mainstreaming at the City Level”, in Mainstreaming Integration Governance, ed. P.W.A. Scholten and I. van Breugel (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 72, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-59277-0_4.
* Second-tier cities: Second-tier cities include all cities (except the capital) whose economic and social performance is of national relevance. This definition is based on the definition by the European Institute for Urban Affairs, Liverpool John Moores University. In their study, the 124 second-tier European cities investigated account for almost 80% of the urban population in Europe, which underlines their importance.
selecting three second-tier cities, all characterized by positive net migration and all port cities with their distinctive features as hubs of global connectivity, commonalities at the local level are given for the comparison. Furthermore, by choosing cities in the United Kingdom, Poland, and Germany dissimilar case studies regarding the national context were opted for: the UK – a country with a long history of immigration, Poland – a country generally depicted as an emigration country, only recently transforming towards a net- receiving country, and Germany – a country with a long history of immigration, which has however denied its status as immigration country for a long time. The dissimilar case studies allow for a more differentiated and comprehensive understanding of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance and pave the way for a reflection upon the potential effects of national frameworks on strategies at the city level.
This thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 1 introduces the role of cities in immigrant integration and outlines the academic debate arguing for a ‘local turn’ in the governance of immigrant integration, as well on the debate on multicultural versus intercultural approaches to immigrant integration. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the current and former policy structures of immigrant integration governance in Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool, as well as a brief outline of the cities' migration histories in order to place the case studies in their national context. Chapter 3 theorizes mainstreaming as a policy tool and strategy, beginning with mainstreaming in the field of gender equality, then moving to a literature review on existing studies in the field of mainstreaming immigrant integration policy, and finally conceptualizing mainstreaming for the analysis of this thesis. Chapter 4 presents the methodological approach (namely policy analysis), the process of data selection and collection, and the operationalization of the qualitative document analysis and the expert interviews. The findings of the policy analysis are presented in Chapter 5, by providing detailed answers to the three sub-research questions before summarizing and discussing the research findings and answering the overall research question. The discussion and conclusions of the study, followed by directions for future research, are presented in Chapter 6 and 7.
6 1. Cities and Immigrant Integration
“Migration is primarily an urban phenomenon. It is in the city where migrants arrive, where they settle, go to school, find jobs, and interact with others.”11
as has been argued by Scholten in the context of a discussion on the reconceptualization of local governance of migration-related diversity. Most immigrants in Europe live in cities, where labour market infrastructure tends to be more sophisticated.12 Consequently, the awareness of the role of cities and urban settlements in immigrants’ integration has risen and increasingly entered current political and scientific discourses on integration.13
In this chapter, I aspire to shed light on the role of cities for immigrant integration and local governance approaches to immigrant integration. In the first part of this chapter, I give an overview of the scholarly debate advocating for a ‘local turn’ within governance concerned with migrant-related diversity, stressing the role of local governance in facing the challenges and opportunities arising from the increasing numbers of immigrant arriving in European cities, and their role in providing policy strategies for immigrant integration. The second part of this chapter will be devoted to defining local immigrant integration governance, including a working definition of ‘immigrant’ and ‘integration’
and ‘local integration governance’ for the thesis at hand. Furthermore, a discussion on intercultural versus multicultural approaches in immigrant integration governance will be presented, since mainstreaming is supposedly linked to interculturalism, according to the hypothesis by Zapata-Barrero, as will be discussed in the section 3.3.2 in greater detail.
Furthermore, this debate serves as a background to understand the national and local political contexts of the case studies, their developments, and their approaches to immigrant integration.
11 Peter Scholten, “Beyond Migrant Integration Policies”, 8.
12 Rafał Raczyński, “Immigration and Integration at a Local Level: The Case of Gdańsk City”, edited by Andrei Taranu, Proceedings of 6th ACADEMOS Conference 2019 International Political Science Conference “Political and Economic Unrest in the Contemporary Era” (Bologna, 2019), 226.
13 Tiziana Caponio, and Maren Borkert, M. (eds.), “The local dimension of migration policymaking”, IMISCoe Reports, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press, 2010), 9, accessed 28 July 2022, https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/31623.
1.1. The role of cities in immigrants’ integration
An increasing level of migration, migration-related diversity and urbanisation are key characteristics of the twenty-first century with more than half of the world population living in urban settings.14 Therefore cities are particularly relevant for immigrant integration and have great potential to foster social cohesion.Local governments are in charge of providing important services, and in doing so, they have the potential to be flexible and responsive, thus carrying both the capability and the opportunity to drive a city’s prosperity through conscious diversity management.15 At the same time, urban governance is challenged by the transformations arising from migration and increasing superdiversity*, which in turn results in the demands and needs for policy approaches capable of managing the ever-stretching diversity of contemporary societies.
A growing number of European cities can be defined as superdiverse cities, which refers to both an increasing scale of diversity and a diversification of diversity.16 Migration is thereby a key driver of diversity, whereas diversity includes all forms of diversity, such as ethnic, social, political, cultural, religious, or racial. Besides the increasing scale of diversity, as measured through the mere collection and calculation of the rising numbers of people with migratory backgrounds, it has been argued that cities are also confronted with diversification of diversity, as the complexity of diversity widens with
an increase in the number of different groups, with different backgrounds and different migration motives, as well as significant differences between generations in terms of “hybridization” with other groups and other backgrounds.17
Scholars* have argued “(…) that these two transformations manifest themselves most clearly at the local level (…)” and thus advocate for a ‘local turn of integration policies’, or a ‘local turn in migration governance’.18 ‘Local turn’ is understood as a reconceptualization of immigrant integration governance that highlights the growing importance of local – mainly city level – governance in the area of immigrant integration.
And in fact, in many European countries, cities and regions became gradually more active
14 Kim Turner, “Good Ideas from Successful Cities: Municipal Leadership on Immigrant Integration”, 26 (November 2021), 10, accessed 26 May 2022, doi: 10.32920/17064626.v1.
15 Peter Scholten, “Beyond Migrant Integration Policies”, 8.
* Referring to the concept coined by Vertovec 2007
16 Ibid., 13.
17 Ibid., 13.
*For example: See in: Alexander (2003) or Mahnig (2004)
18 Ibid., 13.
players in immigrant integration, developing their own policies and strategies to address the challenges that may arise from integration and adaptation to migration-related diversity.19
Cities and their local integration policies are expected to be better suited than national frameworks for accommodating migration-related diversity through local entrepreneurship with rather flexible, pragmatic, and problem-solving approaches.
Scholten argues that local governments tend to work more closely with the various stakeholders involved in immigrant integration, including immigrant representatives and organisations, and are more likely to be able to respond flexibly to evolving needs and challenges if needed with ad hoc measures.20 The shift towards a local turn in immigrant integration policy challenges the prevailing national integration models and offers two possible development paths: (1) a possible decoupling of national and local policies, meaning local policies do not fit within the national governance framework and may thus lead to a decoupling of policy levels; or (2) the establishment of multi-level governance with institutionalised or informal relationships between national and local governments and beyond governmental side with non-state actors such as non-governmental organisations [NGOs] or civil society organisations [CSOs].21 For the thesis at hand, it is of interest to see whether the selected case studies and their governance approaches do indeed reflect this theorized ‘local turn’ in their immigrant integration governance.
Moreover – if indeed a ‘local turn’ is reflected in their governance approaches – it is of interest to see if the developments towards this ‘local turn’ have taken along pathway (1) or (2). Multi-level governance (pathway 2) is considered one key feature of mainstreaming – as will be elaborated later in section 3.3.1 – the identification of the pathway taken hence also allows for an indication whether mainstreaming is reflected in cities' local governance for immigrant integration, and thus central to this thesis.
19 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Tiziana Caponio, and Peter Scholten, “Theorizing the “Local Turn” in a Multi- Level Governance Framework of Analysis: A Case Study in Immigrant Policies”, International Review of Administrative Sciences 83, no. 2 (June 2017), 241, accessed 26 May 2022, doi:
20 Peter Scholten, “Beyond Migrant Integration Policies”, 17.
21 Ibid., 18.
1.2. Defining ‘immigrant’, ‘integration’ and ‘local immigrant integration governance’
Immigration and integration are ambiguous ideas that can signify different things to different people and groups depending on the context and situation.22 Thus, before being able to discuss the different forms of integration governance at the local level and to engage with the research question, it is important to define the terms ‘immigrant’,
‘integration’, and ‘local integration governance’ and to have an understanding of the concepts referred to in this thesis.
Definition of ‘immigrant’
Terms such as ‘immigrant’ and ‘migrant’ are too often used interchangeably, even if they have different meanings and refer to diverging situations. Technically, in fact, the word migrant includes both the people that emigrate and the people that immigrate. The understandings of the term ‘immigrant’ differ among the case studies, both on the national and the local level, and different groups are in- or excluded in the respective definition.
The definition presented in the following section is not an attempt to cover all the various definitions by the case studies, but is a working definition for the thesis at hand, which serves to select relevant policy areas and relevant policy documents for the analysis in order to be able to draw a comprehensive picture of the local governance approach to immigrant integration in the selected case studies and serves to provide the reader an understanding of the definition applied.
In this paper, when referring to immigrants*, I refer to all persons entering a state that is neither their country of origin or citizenship, with the intention to stay for a period of 12 months or longer, or with an undefined period of intended stay in the case of seeking protection due to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion in their country of origin or citizenship. Furthermore, return migrants, having spent a significant period away from
22 European Committee of the Regions and British Institute of International and Comparative Law,
“Integration of Migrants in Middle and Small Cities and in Rural Areas in Europe”, (LU: Publications Office, 2020), 10, accessed 26 May 2022, doi: 10.2863/281960.
* I am aware of the problematic use of the term 'immigrant' and the implied distinction between 'immigrants' and 'non-immigrants' or 'non-citizens' and 'citizens' and I do attempt to overcome this binary. In doing so, I also credit the core idea and aspirations of mainstreaming. Having this in mind, I, however, have also identified the need for a definition of ‘immigrant’ to analyse local immigrant integration governance.
their usual residence are as well considered as immigrants. Second and later generations won’t be taken into account for this study.
An overview of the ongoing debate on integration in an attempt to define integration The term ‘integration’ is a well-known sociological concept, often used in reference to a
‘social whole’ and associated with the work of Durkheim, Parsons, and Habermas.23 In general, the topic of integration tends to be a highly polarized and essentially contested one, thus yielding a variety of meanings. In addition to the different notions of integration, there is also considerable debate whether integration is a process, an outcome, or a combination of both, which adds to the difficulty of defining and measuring integration and its ‘successes’.24 The difficulty of defining the concept of integration is closely related to the question of what the underlying ‘problem’ of integration is: whether the underlying
‘problem’ to be solved by integration is the cultural distance from the majority or socioeconomic disadvantage and whether the assumption holds that the minority should integrate into the majority or that society as a whole should undergo a process of transformation in response to increasing superdiversity.25
Reflecting the partial backlash of assimilation in several European countries, the concept integration as a two-way process has become more popular. While the assimilation approach, which has its roots in the Chicago School of Sociology of the 1920s, is understood as a one-way process, in which only the immigrants change, integration theories consider an understanding of integration as a two-way process to be reasonable.26 In the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy by the Council of the European Union, integration is understood as “(…) a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States.”27 This definition is in line with the tendency toward defining integration as a two-way
23 Willem Schinkel, “Against “Immigrant Integration. For an End to Neocolonial Knowledge Production”, Comparative Migration Studies 6, no. 1 (December 2018), 2, doi: 10.1186/s40878-018-0095-1.
24 European Committee of the Regions and British Institute of International and Comparative Law.,
“Integration of Migrants in Middle and Small Cities and in Rural Areas in Europe”, 10.
25 Ibid., 10.
26 Olivier Asselin et al., “Social Integration of Immigrants with Special Reference to the Local and Spatial Dimension”, in The Dynamics of Migration and Settlement in Europe, edited by Rinus Penninx, Maria Berger, and Karen Kraal (Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 134, accessed 26 May 2022, doi:
27 Council of the European Union, “Press Release. 2618th Council Meeting. Justice and Home Affairs”, (Brussels: 19 November 2004), 17.
process.28 Klarenbeek, however, criticises that most conceptualizations of the two-way process in integration theories do not avoid the pitfalls of one-wayness.29 Klarenbeek identifies “(…) three general understandings of integration as a two-way process: (a) insiders are affected by the integration of outsiders; (b) insiders can influence the integration of outsiders; and (c) insiders and outsiders integrate with each other.”30 Whereby Klarenbeek argues that most understandings are based on either (a) or (b) and thus do not suffice to avoid or solve the problem of one-wayness.
Scholars, such as Farewell or Schinkel go beyond the critics of integration for its pitfall of one-wayness, and critically review the concept of integration, pointing to its colonial origin – as it emerged in the context of post-slavery and colonial rule – and its inherited linkage to Western modes of nation-building and nationhood, and citizenship31, hence demanding for a decolonizing of the term. Furthermore, Favell points to the implicit methodological nationalism* in research on immigrant integration, arguing that integration is a “state-centred language that is so easily adopted for national branding purposes.”32 Schinkel, similarly to Favell, criticizes immigrant integration research an argues that integration monitoring is a neo-colonial form of knowledge.33 According to Schinkel, the imaginary of immigrant integration serves to reinforce (racialised) hierarchies of status by producing neo-colonial knowledge about immigrants.34 Schinkel suggests beyond ‘conventional’ research on immigrant integration towards “imagine
‘society’ against the grain”.35 He argues for actively counteracting existing imaginaries of what happens when people immigrate to another country. He argues that it has become almost impossible not to talk about integration as a process in which a ‘host society’ takes
28 Lea M. Klarenbeek, “Reconceptualising ‘Integration as a Two-Way Process’”, Migration Studies 9, no.
3 (15 December 2021), 902, doi: 10.1093/migration/mnz033.
29 Ibid., 902.
30 Ibid., 903.
31 Adrian Favell, “Integration: A Critical View.”, in Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Dirk Jacobs, and Riva Kastoryano, eds., Contested Concepts in Migration Studies, Routledge Series on Global Order Studies (London, New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2022), 26.
* The idea of methodological nationalism (following the debate by Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003) is understood as the naturalization of the global regime of nation states by social sciences. The nation, state, or society is understood as the basic unit of social and political organization in the modern world. The idea will be discussed further in section 1.4.
32 Ibid., 27.
33 Willem Schinkel, “Against “Immigrant Integration”, 1.
34 Josefin Graef, “’Against immigrant integration’? A review of the logics of recognition among the
‘mainstream’ and the populist radical right in Europe, Dahrendorf Forum IV, Working Paper No. 13 29 October 2019, 5.
35 Willem Schinkel, “Against “Immigrant Integration”, 9.
in migrants who must then ‘integrate into the host society’, ignoring the actual historical genesis of concepts such as ‘society’, and its history shaped by power.36
This brief overview illustrates the lively scholarly debate about the concept of integration, its meaning, and its implications. This debate informs the thesis at hand on a critical reflection on the term ‘integration’ and helps to situate and conceptualize the local approaches of the case studies. Moreover, this debate, along with the discussion of multicultural versus intercultural approaches in section 1.4, provides a theoretical framework for situating mainstreaming as a policy tool for immigrant integration governance and serves as a basis for critically reflecting on whether mainstreaming - seen as inherently linked to methodological interculturalism* - could be a policy and tool for overcoming the “we/us/unity/major/state/nation” lens, as Zapata-Barrero argues, or whether this is precluded by the very design of immigrant integration governance, by its very name and explicit reference to "immigrant integration," thus not overcoming the narrative divide between immigrants and non-immigrants.
1.3. Definition of local immigrant integration governance
Integration governance is a set of laws and rules that are implemented by governmental and non-governmental actors at the transnational, national, and local levels. Thereby, immigrant integration governance includes long-term strategies as well as short-term and ad hoc measures put in place by various actors, whereas their aims highly depend on the applied understanding of integration, as illustrated in the previous section.37
For the understanding of governance in this thesis, I do refer to Schiller who defines governance as an empirical phenomenon and analytical concept that includes cooperation and a flat hierarchy between governmental and non-governmental actors.38 Schiller indicates three key aspects of governance (1) “governance comprises actors from the public, private, voluntary and community sectors (…)”; (2) “governance involves the
36 Ibid., 9.
* Methodological interculturalism (following Zapata-Barrero’s (2018) statement) is Methodological interculturalism is an epistemological lens understanding super-diversity and transnationalism as facts that need to be incorporated into public culture and policy, along with new normative justice claims related to cosmopolitanism and solidarity. The idea will be discussed further in section 1.4.
37 Patrycja Matusz, ‘Cities Towards Migrants. Case Study of Local Integration Policies of Gdańsk and Wrocław’, Polish Political Science Review 8, no. 2 (1 December 2020), 22, doi: 10.2478/ppsr-2020-0013.
38 Maria Schiller, “Conceiving governance: a state of the art and analytical model for research on immigrant integration”, Working Paper 01/2018, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, 5.
interaction and interrelationships of a number of autonomous but interdependent actors.
(…)”; and (3) “governance as an empirical phenomenon is geared towards attaining a common purpose or goal, such as the delivery of public services or projects promoting local development, and to solve societal and political problems.”39 Thus, it is a negotiation mechanism for formulating and implementing a policy that takes place at different government levels and between governmental and non-governmental actors. Therefore, immigrant integration governance goes beyond the notion of “integration policymaking as a top-down, binary system of government, where the national level devices policies that are then implemented at the local level.”40 In this understanding of polycentric governance, the literature on governance links to the concept of mainstreaming (which will be elaborated on later in chapter 2.4) and is thus considered suitable for the purpose of this thesis.
1.4. Intercultural versus multicultural approaches to immigrant integration governance
While multiculturalist policies have been widespread and broadly recognized in Western democracies since the 1960s/1970s as a policy approach to manage cultural diversity, more recently many scholars* argue for a ‘backlash against multiculturalism’ and a move toward an increasingly intercultural approach, especially at the local level.41 The siding away from multiculturalism has been resonating in the political discourses of several European leaders. An example is the statements by Angela Merkel (2010) declaring that multiculturalism has “utterly failed” or Nicolas Sarkozy’s statement (2011) that multiculturalism has been “a failure”.42Within the European Union, interculturalism has in the recent past gained more prominence, through initiatives such as ‘the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ promoted by the European Commission or the ‘Intercultural Cities network’ by the Council of Europe, and has been increasingly institutionalised with the emerge of the intercultural policy paradigm [ICP].43
39 Maria Schiller, “Conceiving governance”, 3.
40 Ibid., 4.
* For example: See in Levrau and Loobuyck (2018), Scholten and van Breugel (2018), Zapata-Barrero (2017), Cantle (2012)
41 Nasar Meer and Tariq Modood, “How Does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism?”, Journal of Intercultural Studies 33, no. 2 (April 2012), 190, https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2011.618266.
42 Ibid., 228.
43 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Tiziana Caponio, and Peter Scholten, ‘Theorizing the “Local Turn” in a Multi- Level Governance”, 243.
The scholarly multiculturalism-interculturalism debate rotates around the distinctions between the two policy frameworks and their approaches to ‘how to live together in diverse societies’, and whether interculturalism is in fact a ‘competitor’ to multiculturalism and substantively different, or interculturalism is rather complementary to multiculturalism. While Cantle or the Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue argue that interculturalism and multiculturalism represent different approaches, other scholars, as for instance Meer and Modood, have sustained and interpretation of interculturalism rather as re-emphasis and complementary to multiculturalism, or as Lentin framed it an ‘updated version’ of multiculturalism.44 For the discourse on the debate on interculturalism versus multiculturalism as a policy approach for managing cultural diversity of contemporary societies, I draw on the theoretical work of Kymlicka (2001, 2012), Meer and Moodod (2011), Modood (2013, 2019), Parekh (2001), Levrau and Loobuyck (2018), Cantle (2012, 2015), Sealy (2018), Joppke (2018), and Zapata-Barrero (2017, 2018, 2019).
Starting with the multiculturalism paradigm, multiculturalism recognizes and takes into account cultures of non-dominant minority groups to the same extent as the culture of the dominant majority group. Thus, rejecting the notion that cultural beliefs and practices of ethnic and national minorities must conform to those of the dominant society.
Therefore, multicultural policy approaches may include adapting laws, rules, and regulations to allow minority members to maintain their own cultural and religious practices. Moreover, they may include the involvement of ethnic representation in all aspects of politics and life, the introduction of dual citizenship, the funding for ethnic group organisations or activities, as well as affirmative action for disadvantaged immigrant groups.45 According to Kymlicka, a strong advocate of the multicultural thesis, group-specific rights are consistent with liberalism and are particularly appropriate, if not necessary, in certain situations.
While Kymlicka and other scholars strongly defend and advocate multiculturalism, scholars such as Cantle and Zapata-Barrero on the other hand clearly advocate for a shift towards interculturalism or even talk about the ‘post-multicultural debate’. Zapata Barrero argues that the ICP is indeed a new political direction that aims to promote
44 Nasar Meer and Tariq Modood, “How Does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism?”, 177.
45 Martyn D. Barrett, “Interculturalism and Multiculturalism: Concepts and Controversies.”, in M. Barett (Ed.), Interculturalism and Multiculturalism: Similarities and Differences, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2013, 16.
communication and relations between people from different backgrounds thereby focusing on commonalities, considering diversity as an asset and resource, and focusing its political objectives on community cohesion, thus, creating a common public culture that considers diversity within and not outside the so-called unity.46 Supporters of interculturalism have accused the idea of multiculturalism of failing to recognize modern realities in several respects and criticise multiculturalism as being illiberal, arguing that multiculturalism is not universalist in nature. Advocates of interculturalism, accuse the multicultural narrative of neglecting the social and political value of the contact hypothesis, and of fostering an ‘immigrant/non-immigrant division’ by reproducing a certain power relation between the majority citizens and a minority ethnicity, thus contributing to a reinforcement of a division of the population and argue that interculturalism is a better-suited approach to manage cultural diversity in liberal- democratic societies.47 Zapata-Barrero advocates for methodological interculturalism, a
“epistemological lens through which to look at new theoretical diversity-related paradigms”, as a response to and move away from methodological nationalism, and hence from multiculturalism which is understood as “direct by-product of methodological nationalism” and understood as state-based theory, though as a macro-politics.48 Methodological interculturalism, according to Zapata-Barrero, recognizes that superdiversity and transnationalism as facts that need to be incorporated into public culture, together with new normative claims of justice related to cosmopolitanism and solidarity. Diversity becomes the main vantage point rather than a supposed us/we/unity/majority/state/nation lens. Along with this, Zapata-Barrero argues for a ‘local turn’ as response to and move away from national narrative domination, for a focus on the individual as response to and move away from ethnocentrism and group-based narrative hegemony, and for the ‘mainstreaming turn’ as response and move away from the immigrant/citizenship divide. Ic is understood as appropriate policy strategy for managing transnational and super-diverse realities, helping to foster a cosmopolitan and solidarity diverse society.
46 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, “Interculturalism in the Post-Multicultural Debate: A Defence”, Comparative Migration Studies 5, no. 1 (December 2017), 1, doi: 10.1186/s40878-017-0057-z.
47 François Levrau and Patrick Loobuyck, “Introduction: Mapping the Multiculturalism-Interculturalism Debate”, Comparative Migration Studies 6, no. 1, December 2018, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40878-018-0080-8.
48 Ricard Zapata-Barrero, “Methodological Interculturalism: Breaking down Epistemological Barriers around Diversity Management”, Ethnic and Racial Studies 42, no. 3 (17 February 2019), 348, doi:
However, in return interculturalism is criticised by various scholars such as Meer and Modood. Meer and Modood critically evaluate forms of juxtaposition and identify four main ways of positive contrasting interculturalism with multiculturalism within the academic literature: (1) interculturalism is more geared toward interaction, intercultural dialogue, and communication; (2) interculturalism is less ‘groupist’ or more synthesised and interactive; (3) interculturalism is more committed to a stronger sense of whole, in terms of national identity and social cohesion; (4) interculturalism is more likely to lead to criticism of illiberal cultural practices.49 Meer and Modood critically evaluate these four types of positive juxtaposition and argue that the positive qualities of interculturalism that have been broadly illuminated academically, such as promoting communication, recognizing dynamic identities, promoting unity, and challenging illiberalism, all apply to multiculturalism as well. They conclude that interculturalism as political discourse is thus by no means superior to multiculturalism by stating “multiculturalism presently surpasses interculturalism as a political orientation that is able to recognize that social life consists of individuals and groups and that both need to be provided for in the formal and informal distribution of powers, as well as reflected in an ethical conception of citizenship, and not just an instrumental on.”50
Summing up chapter 1, two major shifts in migration and immigrant integration governance were presented. First the so-called ‘local turn’ with a tendency from state- centred immigrant integration policies towards multi-level policies and cities thus becoming active players in migration governance, stressing their role in immigrant integration governance. Second, the shift – even though in academia highly discussed – towards an intercultural policy paradigm in immigrant integration approaches within European countries and towards a methodological interculturalism. Both theorized shifts are substantial for the discussion on mainstreaming immigrant integration, as mainstreaming is supposedly linked to both, which will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.
49 Nasar Meer and Tariq Modood, ‘How Does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism?’, 177.
50 Ibid. 192.
2. Immigrant integration governance in Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool
“Through their extensive maritime trade networks, port cities provide a ‘window on the wider world’ and, as gateways, create opportunities for the settlement of extended international communities.”51
Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool are all second-tier cities and port cities that share some commonalities in terms of their characteristics as hubs of migration, which are also reflected in their similar historical, socioeconomic, and demographic patterns, as all being closely linked to their common migration background. These dynamics in port cities offer both potential and challenges in addressing cultural diversity and thus differ in part from the national perception and national governance approach to immigration.
In this chapter brief sketches of the migration history and the migration stock of the three case studies and a first indication of their approaches to ‘manage’ immigrant integration. Moreover, the latest developments of local migration and integration governance will be presented to locate and contextualise the policy analysis of this thesis.
Alongside, national policy discourses and national policy frameworks will be activated in contexts relevant to the content of the analysis of this thesis.
In the last and current century, Poland has mainly been portrayed as a country of emigration, with large emigration mainly to the U.S. and Western European countries, and it is only since 2016 that Poland records a positive net migration rate52 as consequence of Poland’s liberalization (2009-2011) for labour immigration* for specific groups of immigrants.53 Reflecting the national migration developments, also in Gdańsk for a long- time of the second half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21th century emigration dominated . Whereas in 2016 only around 2,500 foreigners – registered for permanent or temporary residence - lived in Gdańsk, the number rose to around 8,300 foreigners in
51 Paul Thomas Van de Laar, “Bremen, Liverpool, Marseille and Rotterdam: Port Cities, Migration and the Transformation of Urban Space in the Long Nineteenth Century”, Journal of Migration History 2, no. 2 (30 September 2016), 277, doi: 10.1163/23519924-00202004.
52 Agnieszka Fihel, Paweł Kaczmarczyk, Renata Stefańska., “Recent Trends in International Migration in Poland”. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, (2012), 1(1), 70.
* It was in particular the liberalisation of access to the Polish labour market for foreign workers through the simplified procedure that has strengthened the tendency toward increasing inflow of migrants to Poland.
53 Adriana Sas, “International migration in Poland 1950-2021”, Statista, accessed 31 May 2022, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063046/poland-net-migration/.
2021, most of whom are Ukrainian nationals, reflecting the national migrant stock. 54 Even before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Ukraine dominated as a country of origin, but the numbers of Ukrainians in Poland have increased dramatically since the outbreak of the war in February 2022. Apart from Ukraine, main countries of origin include Belarus, Russia, India, Turkey, Italy, China, Germany and UK.55
In the last decade, against the background of an increasing share of foreigners of the overall population, several Polish cities started to develop their own approaches and strategies for migration and integration policies, against the background of an absence of an explicit immigration or integration policy on the national level. For instance, in 2016 the mayors of Krakow, Wroclaw, Poznan, and Gdańsk signed the Wroclaw Declaration - a Declaration of Collaboration for Tolerance and Intercultural Dialogue. And in 2017, twelve Polish cities - among them Gdańsk - joined the Declaration of Mayors on cooperation of Cities of the Union of Polish Metropolises on internal and external migration, cooperation for working together in the field of managing local migration through exchanging experiences and good practices in order to secure a high quality of life to all citizens, as stated in the declaration.56 In Gdańsk, the process of drafting an explicit strategic policy paper for immigrant integration began in 2015. Initiated through a grassroot movement, in particular the efforts by the non-governmental Immigrant Support Centre, which advocated for the protection of immigrants’ rights since 2013 in 2015, the evolvement of a local immigrant integration strategy started.57 These efforts were in large part driven by former mayor Paweł Adamowicz, who initiated in 2015 a task force to develop a local immigrant integration model. Paweł Adamowicz thereby stressed that “Migration is a global challenge of today. Also, for Gdańsk. (…) Now is the best time to respond to the challenges of migration and to take advantage of the potential that they bring with them.” Hence, advocating for the need of a strategy for immigrant integration in Gdańsk. In 2016 Gdańsk’s first comprehensive strategic document Gdańsk
54 Referat Badań i Analiz Społeczno-Gospodarczych, WPG na podstawie danych WSO, UMG. (n.d.),
“Cudzoziemcy zameldowani na pobyt stały i czasowy w Gdańsku”, Gcigdansk, accessed July 28, 2022, https://gcigdansk.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/UMG-OtwarteDane3.0/ERFC21zV20lLjnP9DJgZffIB2mgvGV-F- KjK22XZGPzaoQ?rtime=yutTj09v2kg.
56 Ewa Ślęzak and Agnieszka Bielewska. “Cities’ Migration Policies in a Country with a Deficit of Migration Policy. The Case of Poland”. International Migration, 30 July 2021, coi: 10.1111/imig.12907.
57 The Innovation in Politics Institute, “Gdansk Immigrant Integration Model – an Innovation Leading to More Justice.”, The Innovation in Politics Institute, April 23, 2021.
Immigrant Integration Model [IIM] was adopted with an implementation period from 2016-2030.58The model is jointly managed by the city hall and the Immigrant Support Centre, a non-profit set up. The IIM encountered much criticism and offence at the local and national levels, as well as Paweł Adamowicz personally for its migration and integration policy in Gdańsk. In Gdańsk, opposing dynamics took place at the same time:
on the one hand, hate crimes and open racism took place, and on the other hand, an immigration movement was initiated with efforts to achieve equality and improve the rights of immigrants, and a declaration of refugee-welcoming policy. The controversies might also be seen in the context of the difficult moment of time, that the IIM evolved, when the political debate on migration and integration policies was heated all over Europe. The national and local political discourse and its influence on the local governance approach of will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5.
Since the 17th century, migration movements have been an important part of Hamburg's history. Particularly since 2000, a growing number of people, mostly from Central and Eastern European countries, have immigrated to Hamburg. The number of newcomers to Hamburg has risen significantly in recent years: in 2014, 15,000 people immigrated to Hamburg, 20,000 in 2015, and moreover 70,000 in 2016. Apart from 2016, the top ten nations for both immigration and emigration were Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Spain, and Turkey.59 According to a census of 2021 of the Central Register of Foreigners in Hamburg the five most represented countries of origin are Turkey (approx. 44,000), Afghanistan (approx. 25,000), Poland (approx. 23,00), Syria (approx. 18,000) and Russia (approx.
10,000).60 Note that the definition of foreigners thereby includes stateless persons, persons with undefined citizenship, persons with migration background, and people who migrated.61 In 2020, 1,852,500 people lived in Hamburg, of whom 17 percent of were foreigners.62
58 Patrycja Matusz, “Cities Towards Migrants. Case Study of Local Integration Policies of Gdańsk and Wrocław”, 28.
59 Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, “We, the city of Hamburg! Hamburg integration concept 2017“, Authority for Labour, Social Affairs, Family and Integration, (September 2017), 8.
60 Statista Research Department, “Ausländer in Hamburg Nach Herkunftsländern 2021”, (Statista, May 5, 2022), accessed 31 May 2022, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/995591/umfrage/auslaender-in- hamburg-nach-herkunftslaendern/.
62 Statista, “Share of Foreigners in Hamburg Germany 2021”, Statista, 27 June 2022, accessed 28 July 2022,
Hamburg frames itself as an international metropolis, thereby referring to its history as port city and its distinct business of trade.63 Already in the Constitution of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg of 1952, it is stated “As an international port the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg has a special task, allocated by its history and location, to perform for the German people. In the spirit of peace, it wishes to be an intermediary between all continents and people of the world”. Hamburg still refers to this constitution of 1952 as a starting point for understanding integration in Hamburg.64 In 2001 an Integration Advisory Board was established, which is dedicated to providing expertise to the Hamburg Senate and advising on integration policy issues.65 The first local central integration policy strategies were adopted in 2006, in 2013 the Senate presented the Hamburg Integration concept - participation, intercultural opening and cohesion and introduced for the first time a process for monitoring integration through indicators and targets. The 2013 Integration Concept was revised and updated in the new version We, the city of Hamburg! Hamburg Integration concept - participation, intercultural opening and cohesion. The intercultural take on immigrant integration is also reflected in Hamburg’s participation in the Intercultural Cities Programme by the Council of Europe.
Compared to national developments in Germany, local developments in Hamburg started rather early and are progressive. Regardless of its immigration history, for a long time, Germany refused its status as an immigration country and only recently shifted the perception. “Immigration was considered a transitory phenomenon as the notorious term
‘guest workers’ suggests.”66 Thus, also immigrant integration policy strategies were relatively recently introduced.67 A significant and systemic change was introduced with the first National Integration Plan in 2006, and the National Action Plan on Integration in 2007.68 The time, when also Hamburg’s first central integration policy strategy was adopted (2006). The national and local political discourse and the context in which the
63 Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, “Hamburg integration concept 2017“, 8.
64 Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, “Hamburg integration concept 2017“, 9.
65 Stadt Hamburg, “Integrationspolitik. Konstituierende Sitzung des neuen Integrationsbeirats für Hamburg”, hamburg.de, October 19, 2021, accessed 28 July 2022,
66 Eduardo J. Chemin and Alexander K. Nagel, “Integration Policies, Practices and Experiences – Germany Country Report” (Zenodo, 3 June 2020), 7, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.3874426.
67 Peter Scholten, Elizabeth Collett, and Milica Petrovic, ‘Mainstreaming Migrant Integration?”, 292.
68 Ibid., 293.
Hamburg Integration concept was developed and introduced, as well as its content, will be discussed in more detail in the analysis, in chapter 5.
Like Gdańsk and Hamburg, Liverpool is a migration hub due to its port. Liverpool got its reputation as a major port city with a huge cultural variety due to the extensive trading actions that took place in its harbour in the 18th and 19th centuries. The port city’s economic development is directly related to its demographic and migration patterns.
While the population of Liverpool at the beginning of the 19th century was estimated at 80,000 inhabitants (census 1800) it rose in just a century to 753, 000 inhabitants (census 1910). Thereby, the growth was composed of natural growth, immigration, and border expansions. Immigration patterns had a significant effect, as most immigrants came from a variety of different regions of the UK (the Irish, the Scottish, the Welsh) as well as from abroad (mainly from China, the Indian subcontinent, and the Caribbean), resulting in a multi-layered complex society. On the other hand, throughout its history, Liverpool has always been a departure point for millions of people and was characterized by emigration.
For example, there were large emigration flows in the 17th and 18th century of people seeking a new life in the so-called “New World” starting from Liverpool. 69Nowadays, the population of Liverpool city region consists of 1,525,5000 inhabitants (census mid- 2015) with a population growth of 1.2%, and 0.8 net international migration from mid- 2011 to mid-2015, in number an inflow of 3,000 immigrants.70 Best to my knowledge, there is no statistic on representation of largest countries of origin for Liverpool or Liverpool city region available.
Regarding immigrant integration governance, the city of Liverpool does not have an explicit framework concerned with ‘immigrant integration’ in the form of a strategic document as Gdańsk or Hamburg do. Overall, immigrant integration is considered as integral part of the Equality and Diversity Policy statement, which is a result of the nationwide Equality Act of 2010*, which replaced UK’s Race Relations Acts – ‘the
69 National Museums Liverpool, “Archive Sheet 64 - Liverpool and Emigration in the 19th and 20th Centuries”, National Museums Liverpool, accessed 28 July 2022.
70 Liverpool City Council, “Demographics”, Liverpool City Council, accessed 28 July 2022, https://liverpool.gov.uk/council/key-statistics-and-data/headline-indicators/demographics/.
* The Equality Act protects people with the following characteristics of (i) Sex; (ii) Disability; (iii) Sexual Orientation; (iv) Age; (v) Gender Reassignment; (vi) Race & Ethnicity (includes color, nationality, ethnic