Suchergebnisse

Debates on immigrant integration are often caught up in what academics and politicians like to call 'national models of integration'. Researchers and policymakers long for common ground. In the Netherlands, their symbiosis is fed by multiculturalism, something for which Dutch society has long been seen as exemplary. Still, the incorporation of migrants remains one of the country's most pressing social and political concerns. This book thus challenges the idea that there has ever been a coherent or consistent Dutch model of integration. Analysing how immigration is framed and reframed through diverse dialogues, it provides a highly dynamic understanding of integration policy and its evolution alongside migration research. Focus falls on the Netherlands of the past three decades, yet as these findings are held up to the cases of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, insights emerge to more universal questions. Just what are the current political and academic controversies all about? How can governments respond to the challenges of our time? And what contribution can social scientists make? - Debatten over de integratie van immigranten vervallen vaak in wat academici en politici 'nationale modellen van integratie ' noemen, omdat onderzoekers en beleidsmakers verlangen naar een herkenbare structuur. In Nederland wordt deze symbiose gevoed door het multiculturalisme, iets waarvoor de Nederlandse samenleving lange tijd als exemplarisch werd beschouwd. Toch blijft de integratie van migranten een van de meest urgente zaken voor de sociale en politieke belangen van Nederland. Dit boek zet vraagtekens bij het idee dat er ooit een coherent of consistent Nederlandse model van integratie is geweest. De analyse van het migratie-onderzoek in Nederland en hoe immigratie wordt omlijst en herkaderd via diverse dialogen, biedt een zeer dynamische kijk de invloed hiervan op en de evolutie van het integratiebeleid. Gefocust wordt op het Nederland van de afgelopen drie decennia, maar de bevindingen zijn ook van toepassing op Frankrijk, Duitsland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk, en de zo ontstane inzichten resulteren in universele vragen: Waar gaan de huidige politieke en academische controverses eigenlijk over? Hoe kunnen overheden inspelen op de uitdagingen van onze tijd? En welke bijdrage kunnen sociale wetenschappers hierin leveren?

Debates on immigrant integration are often caught up in what academics and politicians like to call 'national models of integration'. Researchers and policymakers long for common ground. In the Netherlands, their symbiosis is fed by multiculturalism, something for which Dutch society has long been seen as exemplary. Still, the incorporation of migrants remains one of the country's most pressing social and political concerns. This book thus challenges the idea that there has ever been a coherent or consistent Dutch model of integration. Analysing how immigration is framed and reframed through diverse dialogues, it provides a highly dynamic understanding of integration policy and its evolution alongside migration research. Focus falls on the Netherlands of the past three decades, yet as these findings are held up to the cases of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, insights emerge to more universal questions. Just what are the current political and academic controversies all about? How can governments respond to the challenges of our time? And what contribution can social scientists make?

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.

The development of Dutch immigrant policy over the past decades has been characterised by the rise and fall of several policy frames. The role that social researchers and research institutes have played in these frame shifts has changed significantly. This article reveals that there was a clear relation between the structure of the policy-making process in the Netherlands, including the division of labour between social research and policy-makers therein, and the culture of policy-making or how immigrant integration was framed. A trend was discerned from a technocratic policy structure with a very direct role of researchers in depoliticised processes of policy-making to more engineering-like policy structures with a strong political primacy and a more selective approach to using scientific expertise for legitimating policy discourse. This article argues that these structural changes provided an important condition for the rise of a more assimilationist frame of immigrant policy in the Netherlands.

Debates on immigrant integration are often caught up in what academics and politicians like to call 'national models of integration'. Researchers and policymakers long for common ground. In the Netherlands, their symbiosis is fed by multiculturalism, something for which Dutch society has long been seen as exemplary. Still, the incorporation of migrants remains one of the country's most pressing social and political concerns. This book thus challenges the idea that there has ever been a coherent or consistent Dutch model of integration. Analysing how immigration is framed and reframed through diverse dialogues, it provides a highly dynamic understanding of integration policy and its evolution alongside migration research. Focus falls on the Netherlands of the past three decades, yet as these findings are held up to the cases of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, insights emerge to more universal questions. Just what are the current political and academic controversies all about? How can governments respond to the challenges of our time? And what contribution can social scientists make?

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.