PARIS - Migration can be a real asset for local development if migrants are integrated well. Many countries want to know how to improve integration policies.
Two new OECD papers explore the question of “who does what” regarding integration policies. They provide policymakers with a tool presenting different levels of government and their role in four sectors. A total of 10 OECD countries including Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands are part of the study.
Better co-ordination across levels of governments and local integration stakeholders is needed. The new papers present 6 good policy practices to inspire countries in the OECD and beyond.
Executive summary
While the challenges and opportunities of migrant integration in host countries have a very strong territorial dimension, little attention is paid to the allocation of competences in integration-related policy sectors across levels of government.
However, effective implementation of integration policies requires knowing who does what for migrant integration, good coordination across levels of governments and strong local engagement. This paper provides a tool for policy makers at the local, regional, national and supra-national levels to identify who does what for migrant integration in host societies.
For 10 OECD countries: Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands, it observes the allocation of competences in key integration-related policy sectors and its recent evolution.There are four policy sectors worthy of particular attention when it comes to migrant integration: Employment, Education, Housing, and Health/Welfare.
As migrants mostly access public services through universal policies,this paper examines their governance structure, in addition to that of policies directly targeting migrants. By definition, universal policies do not target particular population groups and thus often struggle to reach certain population groups, especially the most vulnerable.
In this context, non-governmental organisations typically provide the "last mile" between universal policies and targeted populations. Following, the introduction and methodology sections, the third section of this paper provides policy makers with clear information on which actors are in charge of the four policy sectors key for migrant integration.
Examples of interesting distributions of power and the few available evaluations of governance structures’ impact on migrant integration are developed. Matrices in the annex (Annexes 1.A, 1.B and 1.C) present a summary of the information on the distribution of competences analysed in section III, for the ten countries and the four aforementioned sectors, including an update on the rights of migrants to access to the various public services.
The last section finally explores how three factors linked to migration might provoke decentralisation and centralisation movements in countries. It reveals that factors such as demographic decline or immigration flows, often reshuffle who does what in certain policy sectors such as temporary housing, but that no factor alone can explain or predict all transfers of competences. This is not surprising as the scope of the four studied policy sectors reaches well beyond migrant populations and integration-related issues.
Findings from this paper reveal that the division of powers among levels of government –and the complementary role played by non-governmental actors in fostering migrant integration –varies significantly from country to country and from sector to sector.
While in France, New Zealand and Italy mechanisms for selecting and issuing labour permits to migrants are largely managed by central authorities, territorial needs are increasingly taken into account in countries like Austria, Canada, Germany, Spain and Sweden through the decentralisation of some competences, notably those linked to the evaluation of migrants’ applications’ relevance regarding labour market needs.
Similarly, while in all studied countries public actors are in charge of delivering primary and secondary education, in Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria there is also a heavy reliance on non-governmental organisations to provide early childhood education and care. Overall, an important finding is that subnational governments often play a key role in integrating migrants and enabling them to participate to local development for the benefits of all.
It is difficult to assess the effects of decentralisation on migrant integration because outcomes are heavily influenced by universal policies from at least four policy sectors and there is a lack of programme evaluation and data collection on how migrants benefit from these policies. Despite this, our study shows that decentralisation can only be trusted to improve migrant integration if consistently designed and implemented along with investment in multi-level coordination.
This coordination should include not just government actors, but those civil society, voluntary organisations and business that are often closest to the ground in terms of migrant integration activities. Thus, whilst this work offers a tool for understanding the organisation of public action in key sectors for integration, it also reveals the complexity of a successful integration process: whatever the level of decentralisation, different levels of government and actors in charge of different policy fields must coordinate.
To respond to this necessity of integrating policies to integrate migrants, different tools are mobilised by countries. This is the subject of the accompanying document to this work, which analyses policy instruments from Austria, Canada, France, Germany and Italy to illustrate the following categories of practice for multi-level coordination to support migrant integration:
- Reinforcing coordination (financial, human, technical) between levels of governments and private actors such as businesses or NGOs to foster migrant integration and retention: The Canadian Atlantic Immigration Pilot(AIP) and the French Territorial Contracts for the Reception and Integration of Refugees(CTAIR).
- Resolving information and evaluation asymmetries: Vienna’s (Austria) Integration and Diversity Monitor and the German NetworkIQ.
- Illustrating the positive externalities of territorial development policies on migrant integration and social cohesion: The Italian Inner Areas strategy and the French Urban Policy (Politique de la Ville).
The methodology used to assess these multi-level governance policy mechanisms offers policy makers a solution to evaluate and improve their own existent policy instruments.
Key policy messages to enhance migrant integration
1.Build on local authorities' aptitudes to coordinate different policy fields and to support local non-governmental organisations. With its strong territorial dimension (Allain-Dupré etal., 2021[1])and its disproportionate toll on migrants, the COVID-19 crisis has reemphasised the need for policies and programmes, established at higher regional and national levels, to reflect the fact that integration takes place at the local level, where migrants actually live.
To meet the needs of integration, both from the point of view of migrants and locals, action must be taken in several areas of public policy. Improving the integrative performance of these policies cannot be the result of a silo approach.They must be considered together in order to improve migrant integration outcomes.
SNGs are best suited to adapt policy mixes to the specific needs and opportunities of their territories, and to supplement this action by turning to NGOs. As shown in this work and the tables provided in the Annex, the role played by SNGs varies according to country and sector but is key for the implementation of integration-related policies.
The COVID-19 crisis has underlined once again how civil society organisations are an essential link in the loop between universal policies and migrant populations. Local businesses also play a crucial role in fostering migrants’ access to the labour market.
The important contribution of both actors reinforces the argument for promoting the role of SNGs since they are closer to non-governmental actors and citizens than higher levels of governments.The joint survey on migrant integration the OECD conducted between June and September 2021 with the European Committee of Regions (CoR) to explore subnational governments’ perspective speaks to the timeliness of this work.
For all policy sectors studied, at least close to half of the 73 surveyed European SNGs indicated they would like to see a new allocation of competences among levels of government considering the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on migrants.
Interestingly, the three sectors for which the most SNGs indicated a desire for a change in the allocation of competences are the ones in which the most SNGs provide specific services for migrants: respectively the temporary housing, language acquisition and social housing sectors.
Overall, for all policy sectors studied, except the health and primary and secondary education ones, at least 75% of the SNGs who want a change in the allocation of competences ask for more decentralisation rather than more centralisation. For the health and primary/secondary sectors, about two-thirds ask for decentralisation rather than more centralisation.
The geographic concentration of immigrants in certain areas of OECD countries, and its consequences, which local authorities are best placed to tackle, is likely to be a key reason for this high demand for change.
Although integration of new arrivals in an area with high concentration of migrants is often associated with better initial employment prospects, in the longer run, high concentration tends to hamper host-country language acquisition and, in many cases, educational advancement for the children of immigrants(OECD, 2021[2]).
Perceptions of migration are also territorialised. Within countries, people’s perceptions of migration vary according to the type of area in which they live. Recent analysis shows rural residents tend to hold more negative perceptions about migration than urban residents1, although the former could benefit –sometimes even more -from immigration (Charbit and Tharaux, 2021[3]).
Moreover, the pandemic has led to a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment in some places, with growing cases of discrimination. At the same time, the pandemic and lockdowns have raised awareness of the essential role of the migrant population in certain territories and sectors (Kleine-Rueschkamp and Özgüzel, 2020[4]). This could generate a more positive perception of migration in the long term.
In any case, as the crisis continues to hit territories unevenly, its impact on unemployment and on public opinion regarding immigration is likely to vary widely from one place to another. It is thus at the local level where public decision-makers need to implement communication strategies that can illustrate the beneficial role migrants play in local communities. Indeed, over two-thirds of SNGs surveyed by the OECD and the CoR indicated they were considering such strategies.
2. Address coordination challenges across levels of government and among policy areas through appropriate multi-level governance instruments for integration.
Beyond building on the local level, successful integration requires coordinated actions across policy domains –notably labour, education, housing and welfare (including health) –levels of government and non-governmental actors. To coordinate, stakeholders must know who is in charge of what. This is the question that this work is devoted to answering.The policy instruments presented in the accompanying paper, illustrate this necessity.
For instance, the French Territorial Contracts for Refugees’ Reception and Integration, signed between the French Ministry of the Interior (Diair) and cities or metropolitan areas, aim to improve refugees’ integration by bringing together local integration stakeholders to develop a common field diagnosis and select actions to finance.
The first and crucial step is thus to identify who are the relevant integration actors in each concerned territory. Similarly, the German funding programme Network “Integration through Qualification (IQ)” exclusively aims to improve migrants’ employment outcomes by fostering the recognition of qualifications acquired outside Germany through an enhanced coordination between different actors and levels of government.
3.Advance data collection on migrant outcomes, and policies and program evaluation
Clear and consistent data collection on integration outcomes of migrant populations and native residents with immigrant backgrounds can foster informed policy decisions and measuring, and comparing, progress.
The fact that country of birth is a strong predictor of lasting inequalities, including across generations for native-born children of immigrants (OECD, 2021[2])signals the importance of having data distinguishing between migrant groups, not only to compare them with natives but also with each other ((Van Doren, 2021[5])) and across generations.
Results from the OECD/CoR joint survey, confirm data on second and third migrant generations is missing. More than 90% of subnational governments indicated they do not collect data on the geographical distribution and integration results of these groups. Countries and subnational levels of government should develop systems to regularly collect reliable data to ensure that vulnerabilities specific to migrants do not go unaddressed, and that the positive impact of diversity on local development is exploited.
The city of Amsterdam for instance conducts a cost-benefit analysis of the Amsterdam Approach to refugees every six months. It compares all costs associated with activities for refugees against all the benefits, such as lower unemployment expenditures, higher tax receipts, more educational benefits and enhanced quality of life(OECD, 2018[6]). Results from these analyses feed local communication campaigns, which are key to migrant integration. As migrant integration involves many actors and various levels of government, coordination efforts need to be strengthened both at the policy implementation and evaluation stages.
Institutional arrangements in place at the country level influence whether and how evaluations are conducted, while they affect the dissemination of the results to public decision-makers and inform public opinion. Governments must set up adequate political and administrative systems for evaluation to fully play its role in public governance.
All sources of data on migrant outcomes should be exploited, including not just those collected by national statistical organisations but also from settlement service providers and other relevant actors closest to the settlement and integration processes, as was done in Canada following the settlement of Syrian refugees in 2015-16.Good practices of quantitative and qualitative data collection helping decision-makers reform and improve integration activities through evaluation exist.
For instance, Canada’s Atlantic Immigration Pilot(AIP), presented in the accompanying paper, produces an array of qualitative and quantitative evidence through document reviews, employment outcomes, site visits, surveys with AIP participants including employers, and tax data from an immigration database that covers employee wages.
This type of evaluation serves a dual purpose in providing advice to policy-makers on potential improvements of integration programs and an indication to civil society of the positive impacts of migrant integration in their territory. There is great potential to take advantage of the experimentation and innovation in integration policy and governance arrangements taking place in OECD countries such as the six policy instruments aforementioned and presented in the accompanying paper.
Governments should consider investing in capacity-building programmes that strengthen dialogue across levels of government and with non-government actors. In addition, learning from experiences from other countries and places can definitely contribute to territorial integration policies’ outcomes.
Prior to designing coordinated actions, governments of OECD and non-OECD countries not covered by this study are invited to adopt this work’s methodology to develop institutional mappings that will allow them to identify multi-level governance challenges.
As a second step, they can implement mechanisms fostering vertical, across levels of government, and horizontal, across sectors, coordination, which takes into account the governance specificities of their integration-related policies.
Based on the OECD Checklist for public action to migrant integration at the local level (OECD, 2018[7]), the accompanying paper to this work presents six multi-level governance instruments that foster coordination in five countries. It will help all levels of government and donors to identify good practices to replicate and pitfalls to avoid, and provide them with ideas of how to improve existing arrangements.
For the full report, visit: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/dc4a71c5-en.pdf?expires=1643829096&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=D2399A7005AD3D7B3EF6EEE94E97B67E
