Attitudes (both mainstream/minority)

The central hypothesis of this project is that socio-economic, socio-demographic, ethnic and cultural diversity can positively affect social cohesion, economic performance and social mobility of individuals and groups. A better social cohesion, higher economic performance and increased chances for social mobility will make European cities more liveable and more competitive. In this period of long-term economic downturn (or sometimes even crisis) and increasing competition from countries elsewhere in the world (e.g. China, India), it is important to find out how and under which circumstances European's urban diversity can be turned into social and economic advantages. Many current urban policies lack a positive view on urban diversity, because they generally focus on the negative aspects of diversity, such as intolerance, racism, discrimination and insecurity. New policies, instruments and governance arrangements are needed, and sometimes they already exist. We have to find out how they have become successful and how they can be implemented elsewhere. When we acknowledge the hyper-diversity of our urban societies, we also have to acknowledge that these societies cannot flourish from standard or general approaches aiming at, for example, economic growth or better housing or more liveable neighbourhoods. Increasingly, more diverse, more tailored arrangements are needed, arrangements that have an eye for hyper-diverse cities and communities. As a result of the project, new and innovative policy instruments and governance arrangements will be suggested that (a) recognise urban diversity as a positive aspect; (b) increase interaction and communication between the diversity of groups in urban society; and (c) increase participation to satisfy the needs of the communities. The project thus aims at finding out how urban diversity influences three core issues: social cohesion, economic performance and social mobility and how governance arrangements help to strengthen this.

The European challenges in the field of migration have an impact on society, since the division between them opposed to newcomers and welcoming them has been continuously increasing. The project addresses the perceptions of the Belgian and European population about refugees/migrants and vice versa as well as their interactions with the policy agenda of asylum and migration with a European comparative perspective and a specific focus on Belgium. As Europe face important migratory challenges and political difficulties we have seen an increase of the public opinion’s polarisation regarding asylum and refugees, it is important to address this question. Including teams from our project will analyse this polarisation and its links to policies, as it is necessary for a better understanding of the current debate on migration in Europe and Belgium. The 2015 asylum crisis will be considered as indicative of the general European and Belgian citizens’ reactions about migration. The focus is then on attitudes, representations, discourses and practices about refugees, on the interactions at the local level between the majority populations and newly arrived migrants. The project will follow two objectives. First studying public opinion towards asylum seekers and refugees with a European cross- national perspective but also how these groups perceive Belgium, its asylum system and its reception policies. The second objective is to analyse the polarisation of the public opinion by focussing on pro and anti-refugees’ actions at the local level. This will allow understanding the links between public opinion and the implementation of asylum and reception policies. In order to fulfil these objectives, our project is based on 5 Work Packages that each focus on a specific dimension. The first two ones aim at developing a European comparative perspective on perceptions towards migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This then includes a quantitative analysis of public opinion’s perceptions towards new immigration flows as well as a comparison of 5 European case studies (Sweden, Italy, Grece, Hungary and Germany). The three other work packages aim at a deep analysis of the Belgian situation. First, they consist of understanding actions and reactions towards asylum seekers and refugees at a local level. This implies to study the opposite reactions with an in-depth analysis of their content, justifications and determinants but also to focus on interactions between social groups (pro vs. anti migrants groups; ional citizens & refugees) as well as the interactions between the population’s reaction and the implementation of asylum and receptions policies. Second, studying the Belgian situation implies to analyse asylum seekers and refugees perceptions regarding the country’s asylum and reception policies. Lastly, it implies to realise a policy evaluation of those policies. The aim of this project and the main questions it addresses focus more on the relations and on the dynamics existing between the citizens and the migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. Hence, we propose to broaden the scope of what is usually done by extending the focus on actors that are often not implied in migration studies: the majority population and the impact of new migration waves on social cohesion. The expected results concerns: 1) an in-depth and comparative knowledge of attitudes towards migrants and refugees in Europe; 2) an analysis of the factors influencing the attitudes of rejections, disregards and support; 3) an in-depth analysis of the specificities of the current wave of migration compared to the last ones; 4) an in-depth analysis of citizens’ and migrants’ discourses, representation and practices and of their reaction on social cohesion at a local level;

This paper documents and analyzes trends in immigration-related public opinion over the past decade in the major North Atlantic countries of the EU-15 and US. Opening with a summary of the international social-scientific literature on the roots of immigration attitudes, the essay next documents changes in the average European’s and American’s views on migration since 2000 using such polls as the Eurobarometer, European Social Survey, World Values Survey, International Social Science Programme, and American National Election Study. A third major section employs over-time statistical models to examine the (minimal) impact of the current economic crisis on such attitudes. Finally, the paper describes the scholarly literature on the relationship between public opinion and immigration policy in Europe and the United States and speculates on how likely the current global recession is to alter immigration laws and their enforcement.

This project analyses how, why and to what effect governments at the EU, national and local level mainstream their migrant integration policies. It aims to promote a learning process in terms of policy coordination, practices and outcomes in the governance of migrant integration. It asks the central question ‘What are the obstacles and opportunities that mainstreaming generates in terms of migrant integration policies and outcomes?’. It aims to: UNDERSTAND WHY AND WHEN POLICIES ARE MAINSTREAMED: What is the policy rationale behind mainstreaming, and under what conditions does mainstreaming occur? ENHANCE UNDERSTANDING OF AND EXCHANGE LESSONS ON HOW TO MAINSTREAM POLICIES: What does it mean in terms of policy coordination? What does it mean in terms of policy practices? UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAINSTREAMING: What integration outcomes can be associated with mainstreaming? What are the consequences for specific (vulnerable) groups and for policy coordination? Mainstreaming is one of the key trends in the governance of integration that is taking place throughout Europe. The rationale is that adapting mainstream services to address the needs of the entire diverse population — including, but not limited to, immigrants – has the potential to build a more inclusive society and improve integration outcomes. Mainstream programmes may also garner more political and public support than programs targeted at specific groups, and respond to the challenges faced by government agencies with constrained financial resources. In this study we will look at various sorts of obstacles and opportunities that may occur in mainstreaming, in terms of the rationale of mainstreaming, how it is put into practice as well as its consequences in terms of integration outcomes. As migrant integration is a strongly multi-dimensional issue, we will focus on two specific areas of migrant integration policies: education and social cohesion The focus on these two areas enables an an in-depth analysis of how mainstreaming efforts have resorted to specific effects in terms of policy coordination, practices and outcomes. Furthermore, the project promotes the exchange of knowledge and experiences by bringing together policymakers from different countries and government levels. We conceive of exchange of knowledge and experiences as a continuous process throughout the project. This on-going exchange will promote mutual learning between stakeholders as well as mutual learning between the researchers and the stakeholders. Cases This project explores how the governance and effectiveness of integration measures is affected by mainstreaming at the EU, national and local level. Mainstreaming means embedding integration into generic policies for the entire population. Besides an EU case, five country cases are selected: the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, France and Poland. These are countries with different governance structures in the domain of integration, ranging from the highly centralized in France, to moderately decentralized in the Netherlands and strongly devolved in the UK. In addition, Spain and Poland as new immigration countries are developing migrant integration policies against a very different background, with many local (and regional) initiatives. The country cases involve an analysis of national policies and policies in two cities (one major and one medium-sized city). – EU level – The Netherlands (Rotterdam and Amsterdam) – The UK (London-Southwark and Bristol) – France (Lyon and Saint Denis) – Spain (Madrid and Barcelona) – Poland (Warsaw and Poznan)

The proposed research addresses an important knowledge gap affecting the scientific as well as the policy making communities in the EU and its neighbours. It looks at the interface between migration dynamics and EU policies on agriculture and rural development, two domains that are raising concern amongst EU public opinion and institutions. While it is recognised that different migrant communities play nowadays an important role in agricultural activities throughout the EU, the implications of this trend are rarely assessed. A better understanding of the dynamics reshaping the EU countryside in socio-economic terms - and specifically the implications of a growing presence of foreign migrants - is needed to inform policy-making accordingly. The research proposes to analyse a specific segment of this domain, that of pastoralism – extensive livestock rearing – which importantly contributes to manage marginal territories and fragile ecosystems, which are of increasing concern for many EU policies. The research hypothesis is that the highly specialised skills of migrant pastoralists are hardly acknowledged by the wider society. The research will look into these dynamics in the Mediterranean region, so to have a coherent and integrated geographical framework. In the last two decades it is mostly young migrants coming from pastoral areas of the Maghreb and the Balkans that are taking over from old shepherds in southern EU countries. The research proposes to assess the patterns of these migrating pastoralists and to critically analyse the underpinning drivers, strategies and networks. Research outcomes will consist of a comprehensive picture of migrants' contribution to sustainable rural development in southern EU, with an analysis of the implications for the whole region. By contributing to disentangle the different aspects of these processes the research aims to contribute to adequately inform policy decision-making at EU level in a number of relevant domains.

En France, comme dans la plupart des pays européens, les opinions publiques expriment une défiance croissante à l’égard des gouvernements : leur efficacité en matière de gestion des flux et d’intégration des migrants fait l’objet de questionnements quasi permanents dans les débats publics. L’objectif de ce projet est d’étudier les politiques d’immigration, d'intégration et de lutte contre les discriminations, d’analyser le contexte social de leur production, et d’évaluer leurs effets à la fois en termes d’efficacité (réalisation des objectifs affichés) et de conditions de vie pour les personnes concernées. L’ensemble de cet axe de recherche vise à interroger les relations entre mesures politiques et mesures statistiques. Ce projet-phare est adossé à plusieurs projets financés par l’Union Européenne et l’Agence nationale de la recherche : - le projet européen UPSTREAM analyse la stratégie des pouvoirs publics en matière de politique d’intégration, en étudiant particulièrement sa traduction dans les politiques sociales généralistes aux niveaux national et local. http://www.project- upstream.eu/ - le projet ANR Global-Race couvre les politiques de lutte contre les discriminations dans une approche comparative couvrant, en plus de la France, des pays d’Europe et d’Amérique du Nord. http://global-race.site.ined.fr/ - le projet européen TEMPER (Temporary vs. permanent migration) s’intéresse aux politiques de gestion des migrations, à travers (a) l’analyse des textes réglementaires régissant les migrations temporaires (en particulier étudiantes) dans trois pays européens (Espagne, France, et Grande-Bretagne) et (b) la production d’une base codée et textuelle de données sur les politiques migratoires en Espagne, en France, en Italie et en Grande-Bretagne (IMPOL). http://www.temperproject.eu/ - Le projet MAFE : http://mafeproject.site.ined.fr/ Le projet PolMig comprend quatre axes de recherche : - Le contexte social de la formation des politiques. - L’évaluation des politiques d’intégration et de lutte contre les discriminations - Les effets des politiques sur les trajectoires migratoires - Statut légal et trajectoires socio- économiques des migrants

In this chapter we consider how and why the dramatic changes in the salience of immigration in recent years have changed European politics. We first combine findings from the literature to produce an original theoretical framework of how salience affects electoral outcomes and ultimately public policy via emotional activation and exposure to information. We then overview variation in the salience of immigration in Europe from 2005 to 2018, showing clear trends according to geography, politics and economics. Next, we produce a further comprehensive theoretical framework to explain these trends in salience, based on the literature, that specifies the respective and interactive roles of public policy, ‘real-world’ migration events and trends, media and politicians, before adducing evidence that supports this framework. We consider how salience—both in terms of the perceived most important issues affecting one’s country and the EU—has affected past European Parliamentary elections, in terms of the percentage of seats won by radical right parties, and what this tells us about future electoral results. Finally, having developed two theoretical frameworks, we offer next steps for policy-makers and researchers of migration, public opinion and European politics.

It is only since the beginning of the XXI century, with Law 4/2000, that integration has been incorporated into political and social debates in Spain; still, the current institutional framework took place almost a decade later with Law 2/2009. This legal measure introduced a framework of multi-level governance of migration based on cooperation among central administration institutions, local governments and civil society. The integration model established by Spanish policymakers presents itself as diversified and responsive to the different dimensions related to integration. The main focus is on the areas of reception, education and employment, with employment representing the destination of most financial allocations. The main political tool is represented by the Strategic Plan for Citizenship and Integration (PECI), whose action is complemented by other measures addressing specific immigrant communities. The PECI proved to be a fruitful tool for integration and social cohesion, especially taking into account the context of the economic crisis and the intense growth of migration inflow that characterized this period of implementation.

The goal of the EUENGAGE Project is twofold: first, to inquire into the current tensions between supranational EU governance and popular mobilisation at the national level, critically questioning EU-driven policies and EU legitimacy; and second, to propose remedial actions based on sound empirical research on the relationship between public opinion, national and supranational political elites. The medium to long-term evolutionary trend of the EU system of supranational governance has already in the past given rise to a manifestation of problems. It has become clear that the pace of integration proposed from the top, and some side-effects of integration—austerity, transnational redistribution, economic insecurity, immigration—are difficult to accept for large parts of Europe’s citizens. This misalignment is obviously a crucial issue for any system of governance that aims - as the European Union has repeatedly affirmed - to be inspired by democratic principles. The EUENGAGE project takes seriously the present state of affairs and identifies in the conflicting messages emanating from the functioning of political representation a critical and urgent problem for the future of the EU. The EUENGAGE proposes to set up an interactive, dynamic, multilevel and replicable quasi-experimental research design. Using a variety of instruments and techniques, this design will allow us not only to study the process of representation in vivo, but also to test experimentally how innovative and efficient interactions between citizens and politicians can increase citizens’ awareness of the common problems of the Union, and the ability of the European leadership to respond innovatively to the discontent of public opinion.

Governments, news media and public opinion in Europe are increasingly preoccupied with refugees seeking access to Western Europe. Public opinion is split (if not negative) and generally un- or misinformed (amalgamation across ‘groups’ being one of the problems), and integration policies cannot respond to the needs (see cross-country MIPEX results). This project aims to investigate the dynamic interplay between media representations of the current non-EU immigrant situation with a specific emphasis on the refugee situation on the one hand and the governmental and societal (re)actions on the other. The IM²MEDIATE project combines four complementary multi-stakeholder group perspectives: 1. Analysis of news media content and journalism culture. 2. Study of societal reactions of the general public. 3. Study of push/pull factors in migration from a refugee perspective. 4. Policy analysis into national governmental (re)actions. It is the project’s ultimate goal to inventory the multiple public, policy and media voices heard in Belgium on this crucial issue, while learning from practices abroad (with a focus on Sweden), and to formulate recommendations towards a more encouraging integration policy, while lowering anti-immigration and anti-refugee sentiment.