Suchergebnisse

This article zooms in on the role of policy learning in non-incremental policy change. Can policy learning contribute to 'policy punctuations' or 'paradigmatic change'? This question is addressed from a constructivist angle. Within the constructivist approach debate rages on whether, and if so under what conditions, there could be a relationship between policy learning and policy change. The discourse coalition framework renounces the cognitivist concept of policy learning, whereas the critical frame analysis framework claims that critical reflection at the level of policy frames can lead to fundamental 'frame shifts'. This article reviews these two constructivist frameworks for policy analysis in terms of how they conceptualize and theorize the relation between policy learning and policy change. Besides offering a discussion of the theoretical assumptions of the two constructivist approaches that have been selected, this article offers an empirical congruence analysis of learning and change. This congruence analysis will be applied to one specific case: migrant integration policy-making in the Netherlands (2000–2015). This involves a clear case study where various non-incremental policy changes have taken place, from an integrationist to an assimilationist approach, which makes it a revelatory case for an in-depth study of policy learning and policy change.

Migration and immigration are high on any nation's agenda but have particular resonance in Europe in light of recent events. The new edition of this book has been fully updated in this respect and explores: Immigration policy in individual EU nations The treatment of migrants, including immigrant policies The development and effects of the Shengen agreement The movement towards common EU policies. It looks specifically at the contexts of Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey as well as a examining the changing nature of migration dynamics in central and Eastern Europe. This book is a significant and timely analysis suitable for students of migration at any level.

This article examines what assimilation trajectories were manifest among present-day Mediterranean Muslims and pre–World War II Jews in Dutch society. Alba and Nee conceptualized assimilation in terms of processes of spanning and altering group boundaries, distinguishing between boundary crossing, blurring, and shifting. This study carves out to what extent assimilation processes like boundary crossing, shifting, and blurring had taken place for those two non-Christian minority groups in Dutch society. This research is based on findings of recent (quantitative) empirical research into the assimilation of pre–World War II Jews in the Netherlands and on the collection of comparable research and data for the assimilation of contemporary Mediterranean Muslims. Our study suggests that processes of boundary crossing, such as observance of religious practices and consumption of religious food, and blurring, such as intermarriage, residential segregation, and religious affiliation, are much less advanced for Mediterranean Muslims in the present time. Though several factors might account for differences in boundary-altering processes between pre–World War II Jews and contemporary Mediterranean Muslims such as differences in length of stay in the Netherlands, the secularization process, and globalization, Jewish assimilation might provide us some reflections on assimilation of Mediterranean Muslims. The continuous arrival of Muslim newcomers might affect attitudes and behavior of settled Mediterranean Muslims, while policy to restrict family migration might be insufficient to stimulate Muslims to integrate in Dutch society given the quite negative mutual perceptions, the slow process of residential spreading, the continuation of observance of religious practices, and the low intermarriage rate.

This study applies a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) design to examine how configurations of quantitative and qualitative aspects of media coverage associate with changes on the policy agenda. We analyze media coverage of sixteen focusing events related to Dutch immigration policies—an intractable policy controversy that is regularly under media scrutiny. In addition to the quantity of media attention, we take into account whether dominant framing in media coverage is contesting the current policy frame and whether the framing in the media is consonant. Our analysis indicates that frame contestation is a necessary condition for media effects. Quantity of media attention and frame consonance are relevant indicators of changes on the policy agenda only when the majority of media coverage is contesting the current policy frame. Furthermore, we found that in the case of intractable policy controversies, media framing can create specific dynamics, such as "David versus Goliath" dynamics where human-interest framing of a single case challenges current policy, or "negotiation dynamics" where competing managerialist frames negotiate policy solutions. An integration of framing and agenda-setting literatures helps develop a better understanding of the occurrence of media effects on the policy agenda and how this effect takes shape in the case of intractable policy controversies.

Received: 19 March 2016, Accepted: 23 March 2016, Published: 20 June 2016 ; The article is the introduction to the special issue on 'Solidarity in diverse societies : beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism' ; This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. ; The problem how immigration and welfare states can be reconciled with each other is perhaps more relevant now than ever. High levels of immigration, such as in the current refugee situation in Europe, raise urgent questions about conditions for maintaining the solidarity needed for welfare states. What impact does immigration and the associated rise of cultural diversity have on feelings of belonging and solidarity? How does migration affect the value foundation on which the European welfare states are built? And also the other way around, how do welfare regimes condition immigration policies and political approaches to diversity? Will Kymlicka discusses these issues in the lead essay for this special issue. His propositions are critically examined by seven commentators.

This text provides a critical analysis of mainstreaming as one of the major contemporary trends in immigrant integration governance in Europe. Bringing together unique empirical material and theoretical insights on mainstreaming, it examines how, why and to what effect immigrant integration is mainstreamed. In the context of the rise and fall of multiculturalism across various European countries, it explores how these countries are rethinking the governance of their increasingly diverse societies.

This article examines mainstreaming as a governance strategy in immigrant integration governance. Diversity mainstreaming involves a whole society approach for raising awareness about migrationrelated diversity, mobilising a network of actors to embed diversity across policy areas. Bringing together the literature on superdiversity, policy targeting and governance mainstreaming this article examines empirically whether, and if so, why, and how, mainstreaming is applied as a governance strategy in France, the Netherlands and the UK. Based on a qualitative policy analysis covering the period 2000–14, we find mainstreaming 'incomplete' and driven by political and economic motives rather than considerations of superdiversity.

Dans la littérature académique, la question de l'inscription d'une question au cœur des politiques ( mainstreaming ) est définie comme une réorientation des priorités politiques (passage d'un angle spécifique à un angle générique), ainsi que dans la gouvernance (la gouvernance centrique devient polycentrique). Si cette tendance à inscrire certaines questions au cœur des politiques s'applique à différents domaines, comme le genre, le handicap et l'environnement, elle s'applique aussi depuis peu à un autre domaine, à savoir l'intégration des migrants, une thématique peu étudiée jusqu'à présent dans les cercles académiques. Dans le présent article, nous proposons une analyse critique de la question de la « tendance » supposée à appliquer le « mainstreaming » (soit l'inscription de différentes questions au cœur des politiques) aux politiques d'intégration des migrants. Nous proposons une analyse conceptuelle de ce que suppose le mainstreaming dans le domaine de l'intégration des migrants, afin de relier la notion de maintreaming telle qu'elle est utilisée dans d'autres domaines à la littérature sur l'intégration des migrants, et notamment au concept émergent d'interculturalisme. Suivra une analyse empirique des évolutions dans la gouvernance de l'intégration et dans les politiques en la matière au Danemark, en France, en Allemagne et au Royaume-Uni, afin de déterminer si l'on peut effectivement parler de « mainstreaming » tel qu'on l'entend. Pour conclure, nous verrons que la notion de mainstreaming dans le domaine de l'intégration des migrants n'explique qu'en partie les évolutions stratégiques. On observe effectivement une évolution marquée vers une gouvernance plus polycentrique et vers des politiques génériques. Ces politiques prévoient cependant rarement des mesures destinées à sensibiliser le grand public à la quesation de la diversité liée à la migration, et elles sont souvent occultées par les discours nationaux plus larges sur l'intégration des migrants, ainsi que par les structures de gouvernance préexistantes. L'existence d'une volonté évidente de mettre en place des stratégies de remplacement au niveau local indique que les approches en matière de mainstreaming sont peut-être une manière de contourner ces discours et ces structures de gouvernance nationaux. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens On peut éviter les effets dégénératifs potentiels des constructions fondées sur l'un ou l'autre groupe cible en recourant à des stratégies indirectes qui sont définies sur la base d'une région ou des besoins plutôt que sur la base de groupes. Le mainstreaming nécessite aussi des structures de gouvernance polycentriques, qui permettent la présence de mécanismes de coordination horizontale (interdépartementale, multi-acteurs) et verticale (à niveaux multiples) afin d'éviter le découplage des politiques. Le mainstreaming ne suppose pas que l'on ferme totalement les yeux sur les groupes ; le mainstreaming n'est jamais aussi efficace que quand il s'accompagne d'une bonne connaissance de ces groupes et de leur prise en considération, tout en évitant de formaliser les constructions fondées sur des groupes cibles. Le mainstreaming n'est pas qu'une option, c'est aussi une nécessité pour les politiques dans les villes extrêmement diversifiées, où les distinctions entre les groupes ne sont plus possibles.

In the academic literature, mainstreaming is conceptualized as a shift in policy focus (from specific to generic), as well as in governance (from state-centric to poly-centric). Whereas mainstreaming has been applied in various areas, such as gender, disability and environment, a more recent application concerns migrant integration, which has so far been under-studied in academic circles. This article provides a critical analysis of mainstreaming as a supposed 'trend' in migrant integration policies. It provides a conceptual discussion of what mainstreaming might mean in the field of migrant integration in an effort to connect the concept of mainstreaming as used in other fields to the literature on migrant integration, and notably the emerging concept of interculturalism. Following this, it provides an empirical analysis of shifts in integration governance and policy in Denmark, France, Germany and the UK in an effort to explain whether mainstreaming, as conceptualized, is taking place. The article concludes that mainstreaming as a concept in the field of migrant integration can only partially explain policy developments. There is, indeed, a clear trend towards more poly-centric governance and towards generic policies. However, such policies rarely involve efforts to create a generic awareness of migration-related diversity, and are often overshadowed by broader national narratives on migrant integration, and pre-existing governance structures. However, the existence of an explicit pursuit of replacement strategies at the local level suggests that mainstreaming approaches may be a way of circumventing these national narratives and governance structures.Points for practitionersPotential degenerative effects of target group constructions can be averted by proxy strategies that are defined area- or needs-based rather than group-based. Mainstreaming also demands poly-centric governance structures that allow for horizontal (interdepartmental, multi-actor) and vertical (multi-level) coordination mechanisms to avert policy decoupling. Mainstreaming does not mean total group-blindness; mainstreaming works best when combined with knowledge of and sensitivity to these groups, while preventing formalizing target group constructions. Mainstreaming is not just an option, but also a necessity, for policies in super-diverse cities, where group distinctions can no longer be made.