Characterising two German city networks: the interplay of internal structure, issue orientation and outreach strategies

ABSTRACT

Making use of qualitative data from case studies on two of the most important city networks in the field of migration and diversity in Germany, this contribution aims to deepen the understanding of city networks and their modes of operation. Based on a literature review covering the characteristics of city networks we propose an analytical framework that distinguishes between the dimensions of internal and external representation. This framework enables the analysis of the two cases: Deutscher Städtetag (Association of German Cities) and Kommunaler Qualitätszirkel zur Integrationspolitik (Municipal Quality Circle on Integration Policy). While the former is an umbrella organisation of larger cities, the latter can be described as an informal network of likeminded municipalities in the field of migration and diversity. In order to shed light on the interplay of structure, strategies and issues addressed by these networks (in the field of migration), we draw on the analysis of various documents as well as participant observation and face-to-face interviews. Concluding, we critically discuss the conventional characteristics of city networks and develop assumptions on how a network’s structure influences its outreach strategies.

KEYWORDS:

• city network
• migration and integration policy
• multi-level governance
• local government

1. Introduction

Like many other policy domains, the politics of migration and integration are shaped by the dynamics of ‘glocalisation’ (Robertson 1998). Van der Pluijm (2007) argues that increased internationalisation, globalisation, and mobility shift formerly national or international policy issues to the local level. This downwards shift leads to a stronger involvement of local authorities in these policy debates (Guiraudon and Lahav 2000). A local turn was witnessed already in the early 2000s when cities expanded their competences in immigrant integration (see also Borkert et al. 2007; Caponio and Borkert 2010). In that vein, researchers such as Fourot (2007) and Flamant (2017) highlight the role of local authorities for realising integration programmes. With rising numbers of refugees seeking asylum in the European Union (EU), European cities were increasingly entrusted with refugee reception and immigrant integration.

Growing importance of the local level in migration issues and other policy fields has stimulated the emergence of numerous city networks over the past decades (Acuto, Morissette, and Tsouros 2017). The increasing variety of policy issues addressed by these networks has led to their diversification and specialisation (Acuto 2016; Oomen 2019). Long before the ‘long summer of migration’ (Kasparek and Speer 2015) in 2015, European networks had been established that dedicated themselves exclusively to migration and integration (Oomen, Baumgärtel, and Durmus 2018). For instance, the Eurocities network subdivided its general Working Group of Migration and Integration into two further subnetworks, which address different policy issues. While previous networking had focussed almost exclusively on immigrant integration (such as the subnetwork Integrating Cities), cities have recently started to demand a say in European policies on refugee reception, as in the subnetwork Solidarity Cities (Heimann et al. 2019).

In order to engage in the different policy issues, city networks in the field of migration and integration apply vertical and/or horizontal political outreach strategies (Caponio and Jones-Correa 2017; Agustin and Jorgensen 2019; Heimann et al. 2019). As shown by Acuto and Rayner (2016), city networks also vary substantially regarding their members. The available literature offers conceptual work on the membership structure, the outreach strategies of city networks and on the different policy issues they address. Yet, these perspectives are rarely ever combined and hardly applied to the field of migration. In this paper, we make use of these strands of literature to assess the interplay of network characteristics in the field of migration and immigrant integration: to what extent does the membership structure and organisation of city networks influence the policy issues they address and the outreach strategies applied?

Approaching this research question, we will analyse two German city networks. Germany constitutes a good case in point: municipalities in the federal state are highly heterogeneous regarding their political autonomy, financial means, population, or migration trajectories. Simultaneously, due to the administrative practice of allocating refugees to places throughout the country, most municipalities have been faced with a significant number of immigrants in recent years. Moreover, city networks dealing with migration and integration had already been established in the early 2000s.

We will focus on two of the most influential networks that are constantly involved in policymaking concerning migration and diversity¹ at the federal level: the DST (Deutscher Städtetag = Association of German Cities) and the KQI (Kommunaler Qualitätszirkel zur Integrationspolitik = Municipal Quality Circle). These cases differ significantly regarding their (1) membership structure and organisation; (2) their horizontal and vertical outreach strategies to participate in political processes; and (3) the policy dimensions and issues they address. Analysing these networks, we provide insights into an understudied empirical field and complement existing conceptual perspectives to grasp the mode of operation of city networks.

Setting the scene, we provide a literature review of relevant approaches and previous studies, leading to a conceptualisation of city networks. After outlining the methodology of our study in section 3, we will embark on presenting the results of the empirical study in section 4. Building on our findings, section 5 will discuss how diverging membership structures and organisational characteristics influence the policy issues and the outreach strategies applied.

2. Literature review

Kern and Bulkeley (2009) drew their insights on the characteristics of city networks from the area of climate change. They characterise these by voluntary membership, non-hierarchical, horizontal and polycentric governance and by implementing their own decisions in member cities. Analysing the reasons of cities to take part in networks on foreign policy, van der Pluijm (2007) argues that cities seek representation for their self-interests or for idealistic motives. Both motives were identified in transnational municipal networks that seek and show solidarity among cities affected by immigration (Heimann et al. 2019).

When applying a general definition of representation, ‘[r]epresentation means acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them’ (Pitkin 1967, 209). Thus, representation may vary depending on the particular members in a network. Niederhafner (2007) describes Eurocities, which comprises of big cities only, as homogeneous and identifies the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) – though not being a city network in the strictest sense – as heterogeneous. Thus, their position on a continuum between a homogeneous and a heterogeneous structure distinguishes networks. According to Acuto and Rayner (2016), who analysed 170 regional, national and transnational municipal networks, heterogeneous networks may include associations, NGOs and companies among their members. By increasing the variety of municipal actors that have access to and are represented in city networks, they gain input legitimacy and influence (Oomen, Baumgärtel, and Durmus 2018).

The motivation of cities to take part in networks (self-interest vs. idealistic) and the network structure (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) can be conceptualised as belonging to the internal dimension of representation. In order to represent the cities externally, networks apply different outreach strategies. According to Howard (1983, 86) a strategy can be understood as the deliberate ‘use of available resources to gain any objective’. Literature on city networks distinguishes two main outreach strategies to participate in political processes: scaling out horizontally and scaling up vertically (Caponio and Jones-Correa 2017; Roth and Russell 2018; Agustin and Jorgensen 2019; Heimann et al. 2019). Firstly, cities reach out to each other to evaluate and improve their activities at the local level. This strategy of scaling-out is mainly used for knowledge exchange, capacity building and standard setting. The second strategy is to scale up their policy agenda to superordinate governance levels. Accordingly, networks fulfil their advocacy tasks by lobbying their interests strategically, giving advice on policy proposals and evaluating policy implementation.

While Caponio (2018) highlights the symbolic value of city networks that are active in migration and integration, Oomen, Baumgärtel, and Durmus (2018) claim that city networks increasingly need to show results of network activities (scaling out and scaling up) to gain output legitimacy vis-à-vis their members and sponsors. As the vast variety of municipalities and their contexts require tailor-made approaches (Emilsson 2015; Scholten and Penninx 2016), raising output legitimacy is sought via soft forms of migration governance (Stone 2004), such as knowledge exchange and advocacy.

Apart from outreach strategies, the issue orientation of city networks forms the second pillar of what we call the external representation of city networks. Oomen, Baumgärtel, and Durmus (2018) consider migration among the most salient political issues and the greatest practical challenges for cities. Thus, for a network, addressing migration as a generic issue is quite obvious. However, networks differ when it comes to concentrating on particular sub-policies attached to migration and diversity.² They address issues such as housing, education, the labour market, intercultural dialogues, setting integration standards, and securing funding by sharing best practices (Oomen 2019). However, city networks can also address policies beyond their competences, such as refugee reception or sea rescue (Oomen, Baumgärtel, and Durmus 2018; Stürner and Bendel 2019). Van der Pluijm (2007) detected policy dimensions addressed by city networks on foreign policy: security, development, economy and culture. Building on this work, we seek to empirically specify the policy issues and the policy dimensions they relate to for city networks in the field of migration and diversity.

Table 1 categorises the characteristics of city networks found in the literature, distinguishing between the internal and external dimension of representation. This analytical framework can provide a starting point for comparative analyses of city networks and the interplay of their characteristics.

Table 1. Characteristics of city networks.

City networks	Characteristics	Variations
Internal dimension of representation	Motive(s)	Self-interest Idealism
	Membership structure	Homogeneous Heterogeneous
External dimension of representation	Main strategy	Scaling out Scaling up
	Policy issues addressed by the network	To be determined empirically

3. Methodology

3.1. Case selection

Focusing on two networks from the same country helps to mitigate influences on the work of city networks that stem from the respective state structures. Municipalities and regions in the Federal Republic of Germany possess a relatively high degree of competences, resources and responsibilities (Leo and August 2009). In German federalism, the downwards shift to the local level (Guiraudon and Lahav 2000) is well documented (Egger et al. 2013; Schammann et al. 2021). Moreover, Germany has taken in the highest number of refugees among all EU countries since 2015 with about 890,000 in 2015 alone (Schulte von Drach 2017). Besides, it is among the few EU member states that practice an obligatory refugee distribution organised by the federal government. Hence, municipalities receive a given number of asylum-seekers at short notice without having a say (BAMF 2019). Schammann et al. (2020) show examples of the willingness and ability of municipalities to partake in political decisions and processes in migration and diversity. In their study of 92 German municipalities of different size, location and economic situation, around 79% of all interviewed municipalities stated that they aim to impact policies of the federated state, and 51% those of the national government. In contrast, 22 out of 23 researched independent cities reported to confer with other municipalities on the same level (scaling out).

We analyse two German city networks concerned with migration and diversity – the DST and the KQI. The first one is a national umbrella association (Association of German Cities) representing German cities since the early decades of the 20^th century in different areas of activity, including refugees, immigration and integration (DST 2020a). The latter one, the KQI (Municipal Quality Circle) is a rather young municipal network (Pavkovic and Özbabacan 2017) focusing exclusively on integration policies addressing migration-related diversity. Both networks have predominantly evolved around cities and their interests: the DST is constituted by larger cities and the KQI’s members are also almost exclusively cities, though there are some medium-sized towns and very few districts. As divergences have been observed between urban and rural municipalities regarding network activities (Schammann et al. 2020), we chose two similar networks regarding this context. Nonetheless, due to the dissimilar history, organisation and focus, we expect these networks to differ with regards to their internal and external representation. Hence, we followed a purposive sampling of diverse cases (Patton 2002, 240; Seawright and Gerring 2008) to understand to what extent the internal structures shape the specific policy issues addressed by certain strategies.

3.2. Data and methods

We took the concepts derived from the literature review into account to analyse the collected data containing relevant information characterising the city networks’ internal and external representation. We began with publicly available data such as websites, brochures and press releases to find out about the organisation, members and activities of both networks. Initial document review quickly established strongly differing structures and activities of the two networks, leading to different research proceedings and data corpora.

The DST as a formal umbrella organisation engages strongly in different policy fields, publishing position papers and press releases that provide direct insight into its lobbying work and the policy issues addressed. Documents for the analysis have been selected by a web-based search on publications in the field of migration. On a thematic sub-site on ‘migration and integration’ the DST stores documentation of conferences, statements by the DST´s president and other related documents. Moreover, we browsed the archive for relevant position papers and press releases. The first publication found dated from 2007, while migration issues have mainly emerged since 2013. We gained additional insights into the processes leading to these publications in a face-to-face interview with an employee of the head office in Berlin, responsible for the topics of refugees, migration and integration. The interviewee is directly involved in the relations both between the DST with its members and with higher government levels. Interview questions focused on the processes of agenda setting, the formulation of common positions, the DST’s function for its members, its strategies of lobbying and its relations to other networks.

The KQI is an informal network that does not operate a website on its own. Yet, the convenor, the City of Stuttgart, provides a homepage on its website where the KQI`s publications regarding a wide array of integration issues are hosted. Apart from analysing these public documents, we obtained access to all internal KQI minutes of its biannual meetings from 2009 to 2019. Additionally, we engaged in participant observation in at least one internal meeting each year between 2013 and 2020. We also seized the opportunity to validate our findings in a focus group discussion during a meeting in 2019. Besides many background interviews, we conducted a recorded interview with the current facilitators.³

We chose Qualitative Content Analysis according to Mayring (2000) for the data analysis. Content Structuring and Theme Analysis served to analyse the documents, participant observation and expert interviews. Initially, we structured our material’s content in line with the network characteristics found in the literature. Subsequently, we applied Theme Analysis to specify existing concepts and develop additional characteristics inductively.

4. Characterising the city networks

4.1. The association of German cities (DST)

4.1.1. A network of cities for interest representation

Founded in 1905, the DST comprises 16 regional associations of local governments (representing approximately 3,400 cities and towns) and 195 cities as direct members, supplemented by 13 ‘special members’, including regional and professional associations. Hence, the membership structure is rather homogeneous as the majority of members are larger German cities and towns, although they diverge as regards political leadership, size, region or economic situation.

The non-profit association is funded by the cities’ membership fees (IV_DST), which depend on population size (DST 1987, §3). It is formally organised, and its President chairs the top decision-making bodies: General Assembly, Executive Committee and Board Council members and fulltime experts on urban administration develop the DST’s opinions in professional committees, working groups, conferences and advisory boards. The network employs 120 staff members in its two head offices in Berlin and Cologne and its European office in Brussels. They work in seven departments led by the Executive Director and on ten different policy fields, including refugees, immigration and integration (DST 2020a).

The DST views itself as ‘the Voice of German Cities’ (DST 2020a) to ‘represent the cause of local self-government’ (ibid.). It represents its members’ interests, seeks local autonomy and strives to be considered a partner by higher government levels. In the field of migration, most of its scaling-up activities focus on the federal government, perceived as a key actor (IV_DST). The DST needs to engage permanently with relevant actors advocating its positions:

It is constant drilling, I think that is it – according to my experience, maybe some colleagues here would see it differently –, but I would say, repeatedly, constantly, persistently, keeping at it. (IV_DST)

This permanent institutionalisation ensures the continuous relation to higher government levels.

The DST’s positions on migration policy usually call for federal or state funding, e.g., for housing or labour market integration (DST 2017b, 2015a, 3, 2016a, 40–44, 2016b; Herholz 2019). Issued jointly on behalf of all cities, the DST’s positions carry greater weight than individual requests, in particular when made by smaller cities:

I have taken our flyer again, which says ‘The voice of cities’. And that is really it. Basically, that is it. Because, if a single city - sure, if it is a city state, Berlin, has its weight, of course - but if it is a smaller city, it will have considerably more difficulties in pursuing its interests. There, you are swifter in saying ‘Oh, we are not interested.’ So, it is in fact an important function that we are assuming. (IV_DST)

Thus, the main motive for cities engaging in the network is to enhance their political influence to obtain funding or achieve beneficial policies. This requires sensitivity: despite a seemingly homogeneous membership structure, differences between cities remain, e.g., in terms of geographical location or political leadership, and require forging compromises:

[…] we have to find compromises in our Executive Committee as well. There are SPD mayors [Social democrats], CDU mayors [Conservatives], neutral ones and so on, Green ones. And that is also a compromise. (IV_DST)

The DST collaborates regularly with its ‘sister associations’: the German Association of Towns and Municipalities (DStGB) and the German County Association (DLT), which represent medium-sized and rural municipalities, respectively. They are united in the Federal Association of Local Government Central Organisations (Bundesvereinigung der Kommunalen Spitzenverbände) to produce joint statements on common municipal policy issues. They established their representations in Brussels under the same roof (Struve 2006) and take part in the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) and/or the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) to scale up on EU level. Influence on EU level is claimed arguing that cities are directly affected by EU migration policies, whereas policy-making at EU level is currently the exclusive domain of the nation-state (DST 2013a).

Besides, the DST fosters exchange of experiences between cities (scaling out) to develop innovations dealing with emerging challenges (DST 1987, §1) following a peer-to-peer learning approach (see also Bundesregierung 2012, 26f). This is facilitated by committees on particular topics (Fachausschüsse), a mailing list, extraordinary meetings for pressing issues (IV_DST) and integration conferences (DST 2018a). Moreover, recommendations for municipalities and best practices are published, e.g., a brochure on recommended integration practices (DST 2016a, 4).

4.1.2. Scaling up on various issues

There are three ways to put topics on the DST’s agenda: (1) from the outside, e.g., reacting to legislative proposals by the federal government; (2) from cities voicing concerns on certain issues; or (3) by the association itself (IV_DST). The cities’ inputs are particularly relevant:

We are aware of the federal level, sure, but firstly, how can that be implemented in the cities, and [secondly], what are the cities preoccupied with, which problems do they have, all that has to come from the cities [themselves]. (IV_DST)

Consequently, the policy issues tackled by the DST change over time, depending on their relevance for its members. Issues related to migration have been high on the agenda since 2014:

The topic has a high relevance. […] It is a regular topic in our committees. In the beginning, it was more the field of asylum law – accommodation, reception, those were topics – and now, of course, that has shifted strongly towards the topic of integration. (IV_DST)

As the focus has turned from reception of asylum seekers to integration more comprehensively (IV_DST), target groups have changed, including various immigrant groups and the receiving society now. This broad understanding strongly links integration with other policy fields as mirrored by the press releases: those dealing explicitly with migration or integration have become rare, while current ones focus more frequently on diversity and social cohesion. Accordingly, the DST is concerned with creating and strengthening a ‘Welcome Culture’ (DST 2013b), civic engagement (IV_DST) and intercultural orientation of the local public administration (Bundesregierung 2012, 28–30). Activities addressing diversity and cohesion are also related to other issues of local interest including promoting local economic development or preventing local conflicts (DST 2016a); (DST 2017c).

The DST addresses the dimension of security as a side-effect of immigration in its position papers (DST 2013a, 2015b, 2017a, 2020b). It demands more funding, cooperation and exchange of information between authorities across all government levels to face issues such as crime prevention, misuse of welfare benefits or junk real estate.

Hence, scaling up is the necessary strategy to address policy dimensions where competences and financial resources are assigned to state and national governments. Cities raise issues to the network’s agenda either because they require changes within the domain of higher government levels or when they expect legislative changes affecting them. The former proactive approach is exemplified by calls for a common strategy of the state, federal and EU levels that includes development aid for Romania and Bulgaria to decrease push effects (IV_DST, DST 2018b, 2013a, 6f).

In contrast, scaling-out activities focus on issues that depend mainly on city actors. They notably include issues of diversity, but also migration policy in terms of immigration law, especially admission and residence rights (IV_DST). Other prominent issues in scaling-out activities are education and language acquisition (DST 2015a, 3, 2016a, 18–28, 2018a), housing, including segregation (DST 2016a, 39–47) and the economy (cf. DST 2016a, 29–38, 2018a). Linkages between policy fields are highlighted and related to the broader objective of social cohesion (DST 2017c, 2016a; IV_DST), including social inequality, discrimination (DST 2012) and intercultural openness. These could be described as prototypical local issues, in which higher levels of governance exert less influence.

The DST’s activities thus depend both on the governance structures of the policy field and on the interests and problem perceptions of the member cities:

That can start small, when you say […] at that point, things are not running smoothly, and then you start asking around […] and that way, a problem that had already been big for one city becomes even bigger, because it concerns everyone. (IV_DST)

Additionally, the DST supports members facing specific challenges, even if these are not shared to the same extent by all cities. An example of a solidarity-based action is the joint call for additional funding for cities particularly affected by immigration from Romania and Bulgaria (DST 2018b).

Concluding, the DST is concerned with a broad range of issues from different policy fields as issues of migration and diversity are often cross-cutting, touching simultaneously upon different fields. The issues vary between the different activities employed. Scaling up focuses on issues depending on higher government levels. Scaling out includes those issues that can be dealt with autonomously by the local level. Issues vary over time, while broader concerns with social cohesion increase in importance.

The DST’s membership structure influences the policy agenda of the network in three ways. Firstly, the rather homogeneous membership structure allows for finding common positions and lobbying strategically at other government levels. The high number of represented cities enhances the legitimation of these claims and occasional collaborations with other umbrella associations increase this effect. Secondly, the (remaining) differences between the DST’s members in terms of political leadership or geographical location require compromises. The common ground for claims towards other government levels is that cities seek the autonomy to act on their own issues while demanding the financial means for effective action. Thirdly, different bodies exist within the network for different topics. A committee consisting of representatives of local immigration offices, for instance, addresses the issue of residence rights. This flexibility of people in charge of different issues allows for a high degree of specialisation and differentiation.

4.2. The municipal quality circle on integration policy (KQI)

4.2.1. A workshop of like-minded municipalities

The KQI comprises approximately 50 cities, medium-sized towns, and rural counties, showing a strong bias towards cities of more than 150,000 inhabitants. It includes members from outside local administration, particularly from the federal government, other networks (e.g., DST), private foundations, and academia. Following a state-wide competition for the best municipal approaches to integration initiated by the Bertelsmann Foundation in 2004/2005, the most successful municipalities regularly reconvened between 2006 and 2008. This led to the KQI’s establishment under the leadership of the City of Stuttgart, which installed a secretary in its department of integration. Sticking to its roots, the KQI is based on informal, voluntary exchange between its members. These are usually local integration commissioners or senior management in their municipalities and stand for a progressive approach dealing with diversity. The KQI has constantly grown and has held meetings with 20 to 50 participants at least biannually in alternating member cities. However, it chooses its new members carefully so as to maintain a forum based on mutual trust for exchange regarding both successful and failed policies:

We deal with topical issues, however, with this demand: we do not talk about how good we are. Usually, you have a conference, and you have got your 15 minutes: you sell yourself. […] Like on a guided tour through your city, you present the city’s best characteristics. We said, however, that we want to create this trust so that we can talk about difficulties, that we can also address things, that we are, at least, honest. (IV_KQI)

In terms of the factual policies discussed during the meetings, however, our data reveals two blind spots: Firstly, the KQI has limited its activities to voluntary tasks of integration policy that can be decided on and implemented independently by each municipality. Yet, when it comes to refugee reception and questions of residence status, the implementation and interpretation of federal and state law is of particular importance. Albeit the KQI members focus on soft law and advisory tasks within the local administration only. The reason is that the members are mainly integration commissioners while the competences for implementation are traditionally assigned to the departments of social policy or regulatory policy (Schammann 2017). Secondly, during the meetings, members hardly ever discuss desirable policy changes on the federal level. Since the members are part of the public administration rather than politicians and due to the notion that their exchange profits from seclusion, they have agreed on operating strictly within their legal competences.

[We discuss] with a focus on what municipalities can achieve within their scope of competences. For instance, we are not involved in the issue of Solidarity Cities for sea rescue. That would also be a topic, but we don’t do it. (IV_KQI)

Although the KQI members consider themselves progressive, they pursue their self-interests in daily issues of migration-related diversity at the local level rather than pushing for solidarity with refugees on a global scale.

The two self-limitations – remaining within the law and concentrating on voluntary tasks – affect the representation and outreach of this network designed as a forum for mutual exchange and policy-learning. Firstly, it prevents policy-learning when it comes to strategically implementing federal law and actively using discretionary spaces. When the numbers of refugees in Germany began to rise significantly in all member municipalities in 2013, the KQI decided that coordinating refugee reception was beyond its tasks and reflected merely on reporting the situation and specific voluntary tasks. While some municipal integration commissioners took an active stance on refugee reception and managed to enrich their profiles and widen their competences, the KQI and many of its key members missed this chance and lost political influence after 2015.

Secondly, the KQI’s identity as an informal network implicates that it is neither a legal entity nor a member in any other network. Yet, all members are engaged in other national networks, like the DST or DLT, and some also in transnational networks like Eurocities or projects on international exchange on local integration policy like the CLIP network (2008–2012). However, the KQI does not strategically cooperate with networks that aim at scaling up their policy interests. In sharp contrast to its clear objectives when it comes to scaling-out, the KQI has no strategic and explicitly stated position on voicing interests to higher government levels.

We wanted to discuss [things] critically in order to find out: what will we do with it? […] that we create a forum, in which we do not have to produce a result in some way or other. At the DST, there is a statement of the DST, but [at the KQI] there are many-voiced perspectives on an issue. (IV_KQI)

Nevertheless, some of the most relevant political actors are linked to the KQI by membership, e.g., the Federal Integration Commissioner in the Chancellery and the DST’s representative. Consequently, ministries approach KQI members to take part in advisory boards or expert exchanges with politicians. Stuttgart can be seen as a gatekeeper between channelling requests to the members:

Requests reach us, Stuttgart, and I can recommend interview partners or participants or a certain expertise. And this works well: we were recently in contact with the chancellery, once again. (IV_KQI)

Under Stuttgart’s leadership, the members have developed a common stance on integration policies over the past ten years. Thus, an interviewed representative stated that politicians and higher government levels consider them the most relevant experts ‘on the ground’ regarding local integration policies. While focusing on scaling out, the KQI has come to weigh in on federal and state level due to a downward shift of debates on integration policies in Germany.

4.2.2. Scaling-out on voluntary tasks

The KQI’s self-limitation reflects itself in the issues addressed to develop soft policies. Its founding purpose has been the exchange on local integration strategies to improve integration outcomes: Actual tools developed and good practices shared include local integration plans and monitoring techniques, the use of indicators to measure integration processes, and practical recommendations on the use of specific concepts like ‘integration’, ‘racism’ or ‘parallel society’ in strategic communication. This understanding of a comprehensive strategy to scale out in integration policies is limited to voluntary tasks.

The KQI frequently discusses approaches to foster social cohesion in the context of ethnic and religious diversity via community work. Specifically, it debates religious communities as stakeholders in the governance of local integration and has published a widely spread brochure dealing with religious diversity on the local level. Furthermore, it frequently addresses the prevention of radicalism and the discrimination of minorities. The salience of issues in the KQI and on the national level does not necessarily correlate at least in this category. Discrimination, for instance, had reached its discursive peak during the debates on the Anti-Discrimination Act (2006) and its amendments (2012), while the issue has constantly been on the KQI´s agenda for the past ten years.

Being a cross-sectional task, most KQI members are assigned to intercultural orientation in the local administration. The network frequently engages in the exchange on activities to promote the employment of migrants and their descendants in municipal administrations, which comprises exchange on intercultural training and consulting. Activities on intercultural orientation serve for policy learning. The network views itself as a sounding board for the difficulties related to the lack of financial and political resources.

As education and the labour market are policy domains subject to a strong influence of the national or the state level, local policies focus on the coordination of actors or the development of voluntary measures, e.g., the support of ethnic entrepreneurship. The City of Stuttgart is very active in these and many other topics on the agenda, which indicates the chair’s strong influence on the agenda-setting.

German cities increasingly foster local political participation of migrants. They have established advisory committees of experts with a migration or minority background to make their voices heard in local politics, regardless of their citizenship. Another aspect of political participation is naturalisation, in which the KQI takes an active stance. It issued policy recommendations on political participation with migrant committees and naturalisation having been two important cornerstones in 2010.

Focussing on societal and political participation of immigrants, minorities and citizens with a migration background, this network considers social cohesion as one of the most relevant policy dimensions in immigrant integration. Besides, the KQI targets cultural issues such as ethnic and religious diversity. Limited competences of integration commissioners and the lack of interest in expanding their leeway in policy implementation limits the KQI to developing non-binding soft policies addressing social cohesion, cultural and economic issues that do not require changes in hard law.

4.3. Comparative analysis

When applying the framework developed (Section 2) to the two networks, we made a number of observations that can help us to develop the conceptualisation of city networks further. Regarding the motives for networking and representation, we found it difficult to unambiguously classify the networks as being driven by self-interest or idealism. We identified self-interest as a clear motive in our data, e.g., requests for funding. Nevertheless, policy documents and interview statements demonstrated a genuine interest in improving local integration policies, which shall benefit migrants and could reflect a notion of idealism. Hence, both motives may exist simultaneously to varying extents and emphasis.

The KQI’s internal organisation is relatively heterogeneous and informally organised with staff from cities, academia, private foundations and the federal government. Contrastingly, the DST is a rather homogeneous, formal non-profit umbrella association funded by membership fees. Our data shows that it is not only the entity a member belongs to, such as a city or an NGO, that influences the policy issues addressed, but also the position of the representative within this entity (i.e., membership composition).

Regarding the external dimension of representation, the DST’s main objective is to influence policy making by scaling up their local-level expertise to higher governance levels. Knowledge exchange on specific policy issues (scaling out), however, is its first step to develop position papers for scaling up the members’ interests to assess the relevance of the topic among its members and to forge compromises between them. In contrast, the KQI’s main objective is to develop local soft policies by scaling out among its members. This network scales up only reactively when consulted by superordinate government institutions.

While the networks take up various policy issues, not all are attended to by both sides, at least, not with the same intensity. The DST deals with a broad range of topics, whereas the KQI seeks knowledge exchange particularly for voluntary tasks. Specific policy issues are not always clearly related to one policy dimension only but tend to overlap as integration is a cross-cutting task with linkages to various policy fields. Social cohesion, aiming to increase the quality of collective togetherness addressing all local inhabitants, has risen on the DST’s agenda over the past years. It exists even more strongly in the KQI, as integration commissioners are able to address issues of social cohesion within the range of their competences. Local intercultural and diversity issues addressed are strongly related to social cohesion, while the competences concerning the broader policy fields of culture and education are assigned to higher governance levels. In their scaling-out activities, both networks hardly address immigration law, including residents’ rights. Scaling-up, city networks can only effectively influence issues beyond their formal scope of action by advocacy efforts, as the DST does in various position papers. This includes issues of development aid or prevention of migration-related crime, labour market integration or economic development, which depend on national regulation or funding, which are addressed by scaling up. Hence, the broader the range of policy issues addressed, the more leeway the networks have to change their focus over time depending on the problem perceptions of their members. This flexibility is enhanced by the membership composition: the different bodies of the DST are staffed by persons with different expertise and institutional affiliation, which enhances the range of policy issues that can be professionally addressed. Active members can exert significant influence on the networks’ activities by influencing agenda setting, according to the expert interviews.

Table 2 shows the different characteristics of the two city networks and their resulting divergence regarding strategies adopted and policies addressed. The high number of cities represented and its formal organisation provide the DST with significant input legitimacy to speak for Germany’s cities and to represent their interests vis-à-vis higher government levels. In comparison, the lower number of KQI members and their institutional position within the local public administration limit their ability – or ambition – to scale up. Besides, all municipal members joined the KQI for peer-learning in a confidential environment to improve integration and cohesion in the member cities as legitimate output. So, it has earned the reputation of a progressive and knowledgeable body that is sought out by federal agencies and other decision-makers seeking advice.

Table 2. Comparative analysis.

Dimension of representation	Characteristics	DST	KQI
Internal	Motive	- Self-interest - idealism	- Self-interest - idealism
	Membership structure	Relatively homogeneous (member cities) 16 regional associations, 195 cities as direct members, 13 special members, -Funded by membership fees -Voluntary membership	Relatively heterogeneous Integration commissioners of 50 (mostly bigger) cities, Members from -Academia, -Private foundations, -Federal government -Voluntary membership
	Internal organisation	Formal organisation Non-profit organisation -President -General Assembly -Executive Committee -Board -Council -120 fulltime employees	Informal organisation Lead: City of Stuttgart -Trust-based community -Non-hierarchical
	Membership composition	- Representatives: differ by policy field	- Representatives of municipalities: mainly integration commissioners
External	Main Strategy	- Scaling out - Scaling up actively in terms of advocacy	- Scaling out - Scaling up reactively when consulted
	Main Objectives	Impact on political decision-making on higher government levels	Development and refinement of local soft policies to improve local integration outcomes
	Policy issues	- Social cohesion, - Local intercultural issues and diversity, - Local economic development, - Development aid, - Immigration law, - Migration-related crime	- Social cohesion, - Local intercultural issues and diversity, - Education and labour market integration

5. Concluding remarks

We observed how particular characteristics of these two city networks interact. Categorising the characteristics into the internal and the external dimension of representation, we started to combine and complement defining characteristics of city networks found in the literature. Especially, the differentiation of networks by motives (self-interest vs. idealism) requires further specification to relate its variations to outreach strategies and policy dimensions. Besides the membership structure (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous), we advocate for the differentiation of representatives beyond their respective entity (e.g., city or NGO). We argue for considering the institutional positions of individual representatives, being convinced that the membership composition aspect provides insights into the members’ competences or ambitions to engage in certain policy issues.

We specified the policy issues addressed by scaling out and up in the field of migration and migration-related diversity to characterise the external dimension of representation. In both networks, we found a comprehensive understanding of social cohesion related to diversity of the local population as particularly important. We detected the development and improvement of (soft) policies concerning social cohesion and diversity as typical objectives of scaling out. As the objective of scaling up to influence policy-making by higher levels of government in migration-related matters beyond the cities’ formal competences, we unveiled issues of migration-related crime and development aid.

We gained insights into the relation between internal network structures, involvement in political processes and policies addressed. The analysis reveals that the networks’ structure and organisation influence their outreach strategies: informal, trustful fora are favourable for scaling out, while formality supports the legitimation needed to scale up. We assume a trade-off for city networks engaging in both strategies, unless they are able to separate them institutionally.

Our characterisation and our first indications regarding potential mechanisms relating these characteristics may serve to study other regional, national and transnational municipal networks. The findings are necessarily limited, since we focused on two networks in a federal state with a long tradition of subsidiarity and local autonomy. Further (case) studies applying and refining this conceptual approach in different contexts are needed to enhance the knowledge on the activities of municipal networks in migration and diversity. The proposed framework might provide another step towards a more comprehensive concept of city networks, their structures and activities.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the editors support and efforts for this Special Issue. We also thank both reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. This research would not have been possible without the cooperation of our partners at Deutscher Städtetag and Kommunaler Qualitätszirkel zur Integrationspolitik, which we highly appreciate. The idea of this paper was developed within the framework of the research project “When Mayors Make Migration Policy”, funded by Stiftung Mercator.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christiane Heimann

Christiane Heimann is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Hildesheim, Germany, and a Visiting Fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the US. She is an academic researcher and policy analyst with expertise in various areas of migration and integration. Her work has been published in international academic journals and book series, by the European Commission, the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation and the Robert Bosch Foundation.

Danielle Gluns

Danielle Gluns is Head of the Research and Transfer Office for Migration Policy at the University of Hildesheim, Germany. The office is part of the Migration Policy Research Group (MPRG) and aims to facilitate an exchange between research and practice. Her research interests include migration, asylum, and integration policy in the German and European multi-level governance framework.

Hannes Schammann

Hannes Schammann is Professor of Migration Policy Analysis at the University of Hildesheim, Germany. He has published widely on the role of municipalities in the multi-level governance of migration and has gained extensive practical experience, for example, at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. He has worked closely with many (non-)governmental actors.

Notes

1. For the German context, Blätte (2017, 164) has shown a discursive shift towards the term diversity (Vielfalt) as a widely shared characterisation of a society in need for integration policies.

2. Scholten (2020) uses the term migration-related diversity to refer to the broader issue addressed by (migration-related) integration efforts of municipal networks.

3. Interviews were conducted in German. The authors translated direct quotes into English, cited as ‘IV_DST’ (interview with the DST) and ‘IV_KQI’ (interview with the KQI).