Exploring Welfare Bricolage in Europe's Superdiverse Neighbourhoods

Jenny Phillimore, Hannah Bradby, Tilman Brand, Beatriz Padilla, Simon Pemberton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781000390971
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Immigration Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Migration-driven diversity means European cities are becoming increasingly superdiverse. Some European neighbourhoods have become places where newcomers arrive from across the world, speaking many different languages, from a range of socio-economic backgrounds and with diverse religious beliefs and practices, while living alongside long-established migrant and white European populations. This book focuses on what this increasing population diversity means for how people and local health and welfare service providers seek to address everyday health concerns – from minor and chronic conditions to acute and urgent problems.Using an innovative mixed-method approach crossing multiple disciplines and drawing together rich qualitative and robust quantitative data, this book offers unique insight into the complex and intricate actions, which often vary over space and time, implemented by both residents and care providers from eight superdiverse localities in four European countries, each with different health and welfare traditions. The book introduces the concept of welfare bricolage, using it as a mechanism to explore the structures and rationales underpinning need and actions, and how resources are connected across welfare regimes and borders and within locales. The book illustrates how, in the face of increasingly marketised, cash-strapped, restrictive and institutionally racist welfare states and healthcare regimes, individuals and service providers strive to address need.By focusing on welfare regimes, migration histories, everyday actions and resources within neighbourhoods, Exploring Welfare Bricolage in Europe's Superdiverse Neighbourhoods offers a unique insight into what people and providers actually do when faced with health concerns. The book highlights the role of structure and agency and moves beyond conventional approaches that focus on specific groups or sectors to research health and welfare by looking at whole populations and entire welfare ecosystems. The book's theoretical, methodological and empirical contributions will be of use to scholars, practitioners and policymakers interested in welfare, healthcare, diversity and migration.

1 Introduction

Advent of superdiversity

Introduction

Enormous demographic changes have been witnessed in Europe over the past two decades as migration patterns in European Union (EU) countries have transformed them, with some moving from being countries of emigration to countries of immigration, others undergoing large-scale immigration or emigration for the first time and yet others experiencing changes to long-established immigration flows. By 2017, Europe was home to 22.3 million individuals born outside the European Union, with 2.4 million entering in that year alone (Eurostat, 2019). Populations have become increasingly diverse as the complexity, spread and scale of migrant arrivals increases. Earlier migrations into Europe involved large numbers of people migrating for employment from a few countries to a small number of places, or migrants coming from the former European colonial territories around the world. These so-called ‘old’ migration flows continue alongside the arrival of new migrants from almost every country in the world to many more places, thus old and new mobilities have become widespread. Changes in the direction of flows became more common due to world crises such as the financial crisis of 2008, the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in regional affiliations such as Brexit and the war in Syria; however, policies also play a role on the directionality of flows, encouraging or discouraging migrations. Internal differentiation within country of origin groups has further diversified populations and is observable by immigration status, religion, class, age, gender, ethnicity, language and education, resulting in a condition that Vertovec (2007) refers to as superdiversity.

Concerns about the impact of migration have become more and more apparent at the local level and have been associated with the increased scale, spread and complexity of migration flows in much of Northern Europe (Dustmann & Frattini, 2014), and was exacerbated following the 2015 so-called refugee crisis. These concerns have been coupled with the ‘local turn’ in EU integration policies with a shift in focus to local actors in the context of existing multi-level governance in Europe (Scholten & Penninx, 2016). The extent to which those concerns and turns are driven by exposure to rapid diversification, or negative political and media rhetoric about diversification, is difficult to assess. Concerns about migrants’ access to healthcare and welfare services have dominated the debate. Accusations that migrants are healthcare and welfare tourists are not supported empirically but are nonetheless common currency in discussions around diversification as part of a wider increase in so-called ‘welfare chauvinism’. Welfare chauvinism is the belief that migrants unsettle the fundamental principles of the welfare state by misusing public services for which they are not eligible and have not appropriately contributed (Crepaz & Damron, 2008). Outside the public domain, concerns have emerged about the ability of service providers to meet the social and welfare needs of superdiverse populations (Law, 2009; Vertovec, 2007). Research addressing these areas has tended to focus on particular ethno-national groups or on particular services creating silos of data that can inform how certain groups use particular services but have little function in helping us to understand how access to welfare proceeds in the round. Such methodologically nationalist approaches have been critiqued in migration studies because of the biases they produce by utilising politicised labels, but have received little attention in the study of welfare and healthcare (Wimmer & Glick-Schiller, 2002).

This book addresses current limitations in research around welfare and superdiversity in two main ways. First, it breaks away from an ethno-national approach and focuses on the whole population within a local area, seeking to uncover commonalities and differences, which can help generate new understandings about what people actually do when trying to access welfare. Second it departs from single-service type approaches and moves beyond a mixed economy of welfare analysis to take account of the interaction of residents and service providers across a whole ecosystem of provision. Focusing on how residents in superdiverse neighbourhoods address their health concerns, we offer, for the first time, a holistic account of how healthcare seeking proceeds across welfare systems using as our focus the activities that residents of all kinds, and providers from different sectors, engage in to address diverse needs. In order to do this, we introduce the concept of welfare bricolage, which we define as the “creative mobilisation, use and re-use, of wide-ranging resources, including multiple knowledges, ideas, materials and networks in order to address particular health concerns” (see Phillimore, Bradby, Knecht, Padilla & Pemberton, 2019). We use qualitative and quantitative data from four different European countries: Germany, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. Each country operates different health, welfare regimes and migration regimes. Using evidence from these countries we make a case for using bricolage as a new way of researching and understanding diverse populations that can take account of population complexity. We outline the potential for welfare bricolage to provide a heuristic to aid a more nuanced understanding of the actions and agency of residents and providers within superdiverse neighbourhoods. This chapter presents the context for the book, outlining the core dimensions of superdiversity, setting out some of the key ideas around the term, as well as the main criticisms, and making a case for the need for new ways of researching and thinking about healthcare and welfare in an era of superdiversity. Having examined superdiversity in depth, the remainder of the chapter sets out the structure of the book.

Superdiversity: a new era?

Old migration in Europe

Prior to World War II the majority of the population movement in Europe was outwards, that is emigration. In the UK, Portugal and Germany this involved building upon centuries of immigration into and domination of empires in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. During World War II refugees began to arrive in Sweden from Germany and also, given its ‘neutral’ status, from Nordic and Baltic countries. With the end of the war, Baltic refugees tended to stay on, whilst others returned home. After World War II and alongside decolonisation, different migration patterns can be identified in different European countries, although in general terms immigration to Europe was, until the late 1980s, largely restricted to certain ethno-national groups who had some kind of relationship with the country of emigration. Over decades these populations became well-established and were generally viewed as homogenous within their ethnic or national groupings (Phillimore, Bradby & Brand, 2019). Nevertheless, immigrants and their descendants often functioned as a reserve army of labour who, as traditional industries declined in Northern Europe, became increasingly excluded with few opportunities for social mobility. A large body of scholarship has documented this exclusion and examined the multifarious underpinnings of the relationship between minority status and poor social policy outcomes, which include lack of wage parity, poor health and educational outcomes (Ginsburg, 1992).

In terms of the UK, large-scale immigration from former colonies was encouraged in the post-1945 period in a bid to overcome labour shortages (Favell, 1998) while other countries such as Germany stimulated different migration flows, generating guest worker programmes with migrants coming from within and beyond Europe (Martin & Miller, 1980). Within the UK immigrants came in numbers first from the “West Indies” and later the Asian sub-continent. Mainland European migration also saw significant numbers of migrants (for example, from Portugal, Spain and Italy) move from South to North and with the migration of such individuals for work being later supplemented by guest workers from countries on the edge of Europe including Turkey and the former Yugoslavia. In relation to Sweden, before 1964 migration largely consisted of labour migration from neighbouring Nordic and Baltic states and thereafter immigration included workers from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Southern Europe. By the mid-1970s, labour migrants gave way to refugees and asylum seekers (Bradby & Torres, 2016). Even though emigration was forbidden in Portugal, it was common practice with people leaving for other European countries, Brazil, North America, Venezuela and South Africa. To compensate for outbound flows, and because men were sent to fight the colonial war in Africa, Cape Verdeans, as imperial subjects, were brought in to work (Padilla & Ortiz, 2012).

Germany and the UK gradually became multicultural in that they accommodated large groups of individuals who arrived at particular destinations along well-trod migration corridors. Industrial towns saw the gradual settlement of migrants who clustered in low-cost housing in inner-city neighbourhoods with easy access to the factories in which they worked (Rex & Moore, 1967). Distinct communities of migrants formed initially by labour migration were consolidated by marriage migration and family reunification. These flows continue to this day and throughout generations, albeit at reduced levels. Meanwhile in Sweden substantive refugee populations arrived from 1975 and throughout the 1980s (and onwards), with a large proportion being granted residency, establishing significant populations, not least from Chile and Iran. During the post-war period, European Governments rejected the notion that they were countries of immigration, a stance that to some extent continues, as a reluctance to acknowledge increased diversification and the step change in population complexity was coupled with emphatic calls for tougher border controls.

Political and popular responses to the arrival of groups of migrants have varied over time. In the UK, immigrants who were not Commonwealth citizens gradually gained citizenship and, together with Commonwealth citizens, settled. Their permanent presence began to be acknowledged, overturning initial expectations that they would eventually return ‘home’. The diversification associated with post-Commonwealth migration was not welcomed by all, and while the importance of migrant labour was a politically driven economic strategy, little thought was given to the welfare needs of migrants or to the notion that the general public may resist the difference in their midst. Many migrants experienced overt racism and discrimination. Responses to growing unrest about immigrant numbers set the stage for a two-pronged approach that continues to this day with entry becoming increasingly difficult for migrants as politicians argue that strict immigration controls are necessary to avoid migrant numbers reaching a level that will stimulate civil unrest coupled with introducing, but not always implementing, equalities legislation intended to reduce discrimination. Multiculturalism emerged as one of the key ideologies underpinning approaches to governance as the UK in particular responded to the needs of migrants. The UK government began to monitor outcomes in key social welfare areas such as education and health using ethnic categorisations. While this approach homogenised individuals sharing an allocated ethno-national identity (but which varied along gender, race, generation, faith and other lines), it enabled the identification of inequalities in health and welfare outcomes, although as we will see later, by no means led to their eradication.

Germany referred to labour migrants who came in the 1950s and 1960s as Gastarbeiter, which translates as guest workers and incorporates an expectation that they would return when they were no longer needed. Exclusionist German policy, exemplified by the Ius Sanguinis approach, meant that for many years (up until 2000) German citizenship could only be granted to those who had German ‘blood’, leaving children born of guest workers no automatic route to German citizenship. Historically, Portugal was a country of emigration. However, since the 1970s the overall trend has been reversed and it is now a country of net immigration. Initially immigration flows increased as a consequence of around half a million people arriving as returnees from Portuguese colonies, including Portuguese nationals and colonial subjects. However, during the early 1980s, immigration to Portugal became more limited and was restricted to post-colonial migration, including the arrival of small numbers of Brazilian nationals. A more significant shift towards immigration subsequently became apparent after Portugal joined the EU in 1986 when migrants were needed during the transition and restructuring of the economy. This continued throughout the 1990s. However, the global financial crisis of 2008 led to around 600,000 people emigrating during years of austerity between 2011 and 2015. This has recently led to renewed attempts by the government to encourage those who have emigrated to return and with Portugal now experiencing a positive net immigration.

In Sweden, the late 1970s saw a retreat from earlier assimilationist approaches to immigrants, with the assertion of foreign citizens’ right to vote in municipal elections and the consolidation of non-Swedish speakers’ rights to language support. Despite these official policies, discriminatory and exclusionary labour market practices systematically limited migrants’ opportunities (Schierup & Ålund, 2011). The refugee dispersal scheme of 1984 shifted responsibility for integrating refugees towards municipalities, which opened up the possibility of some local communities refusing to accept refugees. Popular resistance to the imposition of multiculturalism informed an official assertion of Swedish values in 1986, ruling that gender equality and the rights of the child could not be over-ridden for religious or cultural reasons.

From old to new migration

The patterns of migration described above continued until the 1990s, largely consisting of many migrants coming from a few countries to a few places and resulting in substantive populations frequently referred to as minorities or foreigners. In the early 1990s a new pattern of migration associated with diversification was observed. Vertovec in his seminal 2007 article focusing on London, UK, introduced the term ‘superdiversity’ to describe the outcome of changed migration patterns and their interaction with existing populations. Subsequently the term has been applied to countries in Northern and Southern Europe but less so to central and Eastern European countries (although see Grzymala-Kazlowska & Phillimore, 2019). Old migration patterns continued but with newcomers now arriving from places which did not have colonial connections or bilateral labour agreements. These included highly skilled migrants, asylum seekers and refugees and, with the demand for low-skilled labour, migrants largely met needs through intra-EU mobility. However, the relatively low number of visas available for low-skilled workers has increased the numbers of so-called irregular migrants. Vertovec refers to these diverse patterns and flows as new migration. The rise of new migration of both migrants and immigration systems/regimes is a key driver behind the emergence of superdiversity.

The emergence of superdiversity as a concept

Vertovec’s invocation of the term ‘superdiversity’ appears first in relation to London as a response to the ‘remarkable’ ethno-national origin diversity of the city. Much of the subsequent focus on superdiversity has been on people arriving from more places to more places. Vertovec (2007, p. 1025), however, considers such a focus to be a “one-dimensional appreciation of contemporary diversity” and building on Hollinger (1995) argued for more emphasis to be placed on the “transformative diversification of diversity” and thus urged scholars to explore the ways that ethno-national identities intersect with other variables shaping individuals’ lives and opportunities. Such variables include gender and age, faith, race, spatial patterns of distribution, language, labour market experience and, notably for a book considering access to health and welfare services, different immigration statuses and their associated rights and entitlements. The interaction and outcomes of multiple variables that operate both within and beyond ethno-national groups have major ramifications for health and welfare service delivery.

Subsequent work focusing on interactions in superdiverse neighbourhoods has raised questions about the common aspects of identity that unite people or underpin social cleavages (Grzymala-Kazlowska & Phillimore, 2018; Padilla, Azevedo & Olmos-Alcaraz, 2015; Wessendorf, 2013). In addition, research exploring social policy outcomes suggests that factors such as age and gender (Bhopal, 1997), the newness of a group in an area and the availability of social networks (Phillimore, 2015, 2016) may be more important than ethno-national origin, which has been the primary focus of researchers for decades. Recently superdiversity researchers have talked about the need to identify the difference or differences that influence people’s experiences of, or susceptibility to, inequality and exclusion (Hernández Plaza, Padilla, Ortiz & Rodrigues, 2014; Humphris, 2015). The need to consider the intersection of these differences parallels feminist work on intersectionality but with a geographical rather than gender emphasis to examine the ways that multiple intersections, which include gender, interact with superdiverse places and thereby shape access to welfare and other services (Williams, 2021; Humphris, 2015).

The demographic trends identified by Vertovec in London are now evident in many other places albeit at different levels of intensity. Inadequate demographic data and/or lack of consistency in data collection frequently make identifying and comparing superdiversity difficult. Crul (2016) argues that superdiversity is conceptually vague, lacking a clear definition of exactly how a superdiverse place can be defined. Indeed, there is no identified tipping point at which a population might be defined as superdiverse. Rather than indicating a particular tipping point we argue that superdiversity is the product of the interaction of a number of different processes which produce a level of population diversity that Vertovec describes as superseding anything previously experienced (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015). We argue that superdiversification, as the sum of various processes, emerges as an additional layer of complexity to existing and ongoing multicultural communities. In some countries, such as Sweden, this multi-layering is further complexified by the presence, of indigenous people, who despite legal recognition, have been subject to exclusion and marginalisation.

When we discuss superdiversity in this book we refer to the complex populations that are a combination of some or all of these layers and do not assume the layers to necessarily be distinct, nor any particular layer to be homogenous. Thus, in line with sociological theory around fluid societies, the decline of tradition, freedom from social constraints and wider exposure to broad ranging lifestyle choices and opportunities for individualised living (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002), we contend that diversification within diversity is a feature of most populations and a key feature of post-modernity in Europe (Grzymala-Kazlowska & Phillimore, 2018).

Processes of superdiversification

Rather than claiming that superdiversity replaces multicultural societies, Meissner and Vertovec (2015, p. 550) suggest we focus upon diversity “on the move … to move from analysing diversity to analysing diversifications”. A focus on diversifications implies that superdiversity emerges where certain processes are evident. Phillimore and Padilla participated in a workshop entitled Superdiversity: comparative questions at the Max Planck Institute for Research into Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Gottingen, Germany, in September 2012 at which participants identified and discussed the key processes underpinning supe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• About the authors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: Advent of superdiversity
• 2 Superdiversity and welfare delivery
• 3 Understanding the delivery of health and welfare to diverse populations
• 4 The case study countries, neighbourhoods and regimes
• 5 Researching health and welfare in an era of superdiversity
• 6 Residents as bricoleurs
• 7 Factors shaping bricolage tactics
• 8 Welfare providers as bricoleurs: Meeting diverse need across welfare ecosystems
• 9 Conclusions: Superdiversity, bricolage and an ethics of care
• Appendix
• References
• Index