Integrating Immigrants in the Netherlands

Cultural Versus Socio-Economic Integration

Wilma Vollebergh, Justus Veenman, Louk Hagendoorn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138716377
• eBook ISBN: 9781351768771
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This title was first published in 2003. Using a behaviourist and quantitative approach, this study examines the vexed questions surrounding the economic and cultural integration of immigrants into the Netherlands. The authors use the Dutch case as a specific example of a wider European problem. The book examines the two opposing theoretical and political points of view on integration, whether immigrants need to adapt to the dominant culture before they are able to fully participate in socio-economic life, or whether as they participate in socio-economic life they will gradually adapt to the dominant culture. Based primarily on quantitative research, the authors unravel the complex interrelationship between cultural and socio-economic integration. They explore some of the barriers to entry into Dutch society and discuss questions of ethnic identification, parenting, educational achievement and the labour market. Since contextual factors clearly affect integration, the study also looks at the effects of migrant policies and immigration policies in different West European countries and examines social distance from immigrant groups by the native Dutch population.

Chapter 1
An International Comparison of Migration and Immigrant Policy with Respect to Immigrants from Turkey and their Participation in the Labour Market

Philip Muus

The broader context of this study concerns the relationship between normative orientations of immigrants from Turkey (and their descendants) and their participation in the Netherlands society. In this chapter we will look at the possible impact in the national context of migration and immigrant policies on immigrants' participation in the labour market; this will be evaluated by comparing one immigrant group (immigrants from Turkey and their descendants) in several European countries. An international comparison of normative orientations of Turkish immigrants could not be included due to a lack of internationally comparable data. The demographic development of the selected immigrant category in each country is taken into consideration as an intermediate variable: the demographic changes in the stock and flow of this selected immigrant category are also expected to be influenced by migration and immigrant policies, and in turn they may impact on the group's participation (in the labour market) in the countries concerned. The Dutch context will be compared, where possible, with the settlement context in four other countries: Germany, Sweden, Belgium and France. This chapter will contribute to broadening our insight into the Dutch context with regard to the participation of immigrants from Turkey and their descendants.

Hypothetically, it could be expected that the participation of an immigrant group should be positively influenced by an explicitly formulated immigrant policy. Countries with, for example, a multicultural or an assimilationist immigrant policy should show better participation by a specific immigrant group than countries without any policy, or only a partial or implicit immigrant policy.

It could also be expected that a restrictive migration policy towards a particular immigrant category would lead to relatively less immigration and more repatriation by this group, and consequently to relatively less demographic growth in this specific immigrant category compared to a country with a less restrictive migration policy.

Finally, it could be expected that countries experiencing a relatively strong demographic growth in a specific immigrant group would have greater problems with that group's participation compared to countries with less demographic growth in the same immigrant group, other circumstances being comparable.

Ideally a comparative study like this should be based on a set of fully comparative data, if possible on a large cross-country survey of immigrants from Turkey and their descendants. In practice, there are no comparative datasets in all the desired fields (policies, demography and labour market participation) and neither can we rely on any specific cross-country survey. We have to rely on those data that are available for some or all of the countries concerned. This means that the situation in the Netherlands cannot always be compared with all the other four countries.

Main Findings

The data show that elements of migration policy (the admission and return policies) have had an impact on the selective growth of the immigrant group in a specific country of settlement, and that the type of naturalisation policy has had an impact on the naturalisation rate of the immigrants from Turkey and their descendants. The relationship between the type of official (national) immigrant policy (besides naturalisation policy) and immigrants' participation in the national labour market is less clear. This can be illustrated by the fact that we could not establish a uniform relationship between rates of unemployment and type of integration policy. There are indications of higher unemployment among 'Turkish' immigrants in countries with an explicit immigrant policy than in countries without specific immigrant policies. This outcome could be related to the fact that migration and naturalisation policies may be seen as policies having a direct effect on the legal or judicial position of immigrants. Whereas immigrant policies are often strongly worded, they are often more diffuse, or softer, when it comes to putting them into effect. But this outcome may also be influenced by the fact that the impact of immigrant policies is, in any case, more difficult to determine. The available data suggest that the German's active return policy for unemployed or almost unemployed Turkish workers and their family members, more than any labour market integration measure, may have contributed to a relatively low unemployment figure for Turks in Germany (by exporting unemployment).

Definitions and the Choice of the Immigrant Group and Countries of Settlement

Migration policy is defined as the policy relating to the admission, stay and return of foreigners. Immigrant policy is defined as the policy relating to the incorporation of immigrants in the host society. The incorporation of immigrants may take different forms, from straightforward assimilation to multicultural approaches. In some countries, like France, there is practically no explicit immigrant policy at the national level. The French state is mainly oriented towards the legal assimilation of foreign immigrants becoming French citizens by way of naturalisation.

Hammar (1985, p. 272) argued, on the basis of a comparison of six European countries, that migration and immigrant policy are mutually related, although we cannot speak of an unequivocal causal relationship. Both policy developments influence each other, but they are also influenced by other factors.

Freeman (1992, p. 27) concluded, on the basis of comparative research between France and the UK, that migration control is a necessary precondition for an acceptable immigrant policy. Hammar (1985, p. 273) underlined the necessity of the admission policy being severe and unwelcoming to potential immigrants, if the immigrant policy is friendly towards those who are admitted. Immigrant policy is not always explicitly formulated, for example in France.

Immigrant Group

This study is part of a larger research project on the normative orientations and participation of immigrants in the Netherlands. The choice of the Turkish immigrant group is central to the larger research project, although here we prefer to speak of immigrants from Turkey and their descendants. Not all immigrants are assumed to identify with a Turkish national or cultural identity. Although there are no precise figures, we may safely conclude that there is a Kurdish presence specifically in the asylum category in all countries, and there are also small communities of Syrian orthodox or other religious minorities in practically all countries. The data do not report differences in ethnic background or even in regional or urban/rural background.

Countries of Settlement

There were three reasons to choose the other countries of settlement for comparison with the Dutch situation. Firstly, there had to be an immigrant group from Turkey; secondly, the countries had to have differences in their migration and/or immigrant policy; and thirdly, there had to be a minimum amount of data available about the group. The choice was also influenced by other comparative studies on immigrant policy and/or participation. (Entzinger, 1984; Hammar, 1985; Fase, 1994; Werner, 1994; Őzüekren & Van Kempen, 1997; Doomernik, 1998; Mahnig, 1998). We selected five countries to study in detail: France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands. These five countries were not included in all the studies named above. Belgium was only considered by Entzinger and Fase, while Doomernik and Mahnig described the situation in France, the Netherlands and Germany.

National Comparison of Models

Migration and immigrant policies differ between these five countries, but there is a trend towards convergence. Clear-cut distinctions between the countries are difficult to give. Policies develop over time and not always in the same direction. In our comparison, the French 'republican' assimilationist approach was at one time probably the most different from the former Dutch ethnic minorities approach. But both policies have developed in practice: the French becoming a bit less assimilationist and the Dutch becoming more so.

German migration and immigrant policy is mostly based on three elements: restrictions on permanent immigration, integration measures for those who do stay (but with a highly restrictive naturalisation policy which only recently became milder) and support for those who want to return to their country of origin. Since the mid-1970s until quite recently Swedish policy has been marked by a strong element of equal (legal) treatment with regard to permanency of stay and integration, in addition to specific language training programs upon arrival. Sweden's main elements were equality, freedom of choice and co-operation. Belgian policy has been the least specified for a long time, with immigrant policy in Wallonia resembling the French approach, while in Flanders it resembled the Dutch approach (Phalet & Krekels, 1998). These are only brief descriptions of the national differences but they serve as starting points for a more detailed description of migration and immigrant policy.

All the authors of the comparative studies stress existing differences, but take various dimensions as their starting points (the countries which overlap with those in this study are given in parentheses). Entzinger (1984) distinguished between liberal and restrictive immigration policy, and between immigrant policy oriented towards temporary or permanent stays. (Nl., Ger., Be., Fr., Swe.). Hammar ( 1985) chose countries on the basis of the dominant type of immigration (guest workers; colonial/ post-colonial; permanent immigration, and a mixture of these) and compared immigration and immigrant policies (Swe., Nl, Fr., Ger.). Fase (1994) studied the education and ethnicity of immigrants in Western Europe and chose some Western European countries experiencing similar migration patterns but which reacted with dissimilar policy responses (Be., Fr., Ger., Nl.). In a study for the ILO, Werner (1994) compared the integration of foreign workers into the labour markets in four countries (Fr., Ger., Nl., Swe.). This study was partly repeated by Doomernik (1998) in another study for the ILO on the effectiveness of integration policies on immigrants and their descendants (Fr., Ger., and Nl.). Őzüekren and Van Kempen (1997) edited a book on the housing and urban segregation of Turks in five European countries (Fr., Be., Nl., Ger., Swe.). Lastly, Mahnig wrote two studies, one on immigration policy (1997) (Fr., Nl., Ger.) and one on integration policy (1998) (Fr., Nl., Ger.).

Here we follow Castles and Miller (1993, p. 39) in their choice of typology of countries by four ideal types of nationhood or citizenship (see also Doomernik, 1998), because it offers a chance to clarify some of the ideology underlying migration and immigrant policy in the selected countries. Immigrants settling in these countries may be influenced in their orientation and their participation in society by the differences between these ideal types as distinguished by Castles and Miller:

1. The Imperial Model: definition of belonging to the nation in terms of being a subject of the same power or ruler;
2. The Folk or Ethnic Model: definition of belonging to the nation in terms of ethnicity (common descent, language, culture) leading to exclusion of minorities from citizenship and from the community of the nation;
3. The Republican Model: definition of the nation as a political community, based on a constitution, laws and citizenship, with the opportunity of admitting newcomers to the community providing they adhere to the political rules and are willing to adopt the national culture;
4. The Multicultural Model: definition of the nation as a political community, based on a constitution, laws and citizenship, with the opportunity of admitting newcomers to the community providing they adhere to the political rules and accepting cultural differences and the formation of ethnic communities.

Germany Germany fits best in the ethnic model, inclusive for ethnic Germans but excluding the immigrants from, for example, easy access to German citizenship. Migration policy is restrictive and intentionally temporary towards non-Germans. Family reunification is only permitted under strict conditions, e.g. with a maximum age for children and waiting periods for spouses. Repatriation policy is stimulated for those who cannot integrate into the labour market or society. Integration in German society is only for those who want to stay permanently. Germany is not officially an immigration country, lus sanguinis (citizenship rights based on blood relationship) is an important principle of the German nation. Recently the picture has become more diffuse and naturalisation rights have been extended on the basis of ius soli and ius domicilii (citizenship rights based on place of birth or on period of legal stay) types of rights, like a certain period of legal stay in Germany.

France France fits best in the republican model, in which every inhabitant of the territory should end up with equal rights and have equal opportunities to participate in society. Citizenship is accessible and the cultural model is highly assimilationist to the dominant national culture, which is expressed partly by a strong emphasis on language teaching and good language skills in French. Officially there is no room for other cultures or for cultural or ethnic minorities to exist or to develop. Although in the last decade it seems that France has been allowing more diversity at a local level, while continuing its 'monocultural face' at national level. France was one of the few declared European immigration countries, until restrictive immigration laws were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Netherlands The Netherlands for a long time fitted best in the multicultural model, with its approach partly led by republican principles of equal rights and equal access, irrespective of ethnic and/or national group. Much attention was given to furthering the emancipation and participation of minority groups in Dutch society, to legal action in the field of anti-discrimination legislation, and to policies aimed at reducing the social and economic deprivation of minority groups. The multicultural model (ethnic minorities policies) functioned officially only in the 1980s. Criticism in the 1990s led to the gradual introduction of more general approaches, with a strong emphasis on learning the Dutch language and less on the right or possibility to learn minority languages. Migration policy was officially labelled as restrictive, and only recently has the Netherlands recognised that it is de facto an immigration country. Compared to Germany's immigration policy, for example, the Netherlands has been more liberal in its family reunification criteria and has never put an active repatriation policy into practice. Naturalisation in the 1990s allowed immigrants to keep their former nationality, creating a possibility of dual nationality, although this has now been restricted again (end of 1990s).

Sweden Sweden can be labelled multicultural in terms of policy but has put more effort than the Netherlands into assimilating its newcomers as active citizens. Since the mid-1970s it has promoted Swedish language training, equal rights, access to housing, education, and work, and easy access to Swedish nationality. The three basic elements of Swedish immigrant policy have been equality, freedom of choi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction Cultural Orientation and Socio-Economic Integration of Immigrants in the Netherlands
• 1 An International Comparison of Migration and Immigrant Policy with Respect to Immigrants from Turkey and their Participation in the Labour Market
• 2 Why the Dutch Maintain More Social Distance from Some Ethnic Minorities than Others: A Model Explaining the Ethnic Hierarchy
• 4 Parenting and Adolescent Development in Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan Families in the Netherlands
• 5 Normative Orientation and Academic Achievement in a School Context
• 6 Acculturation, Motivation and Educational Attainment: A Contextual Model of Minority School Achievement
• 7 The Ethno-Cultural and Socio-Economic Position of Ethnic Minority Groups in the Netherlands
• 8 The Cultural Integration of Immigrants in the Netherlands: A Description and Explanation of Modern Attitudes of Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans and the Indigenous Population
• Conclusion Some Conclusions on the Integration of Immigrants in the Netherlands
• Index