![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Cities are increasingly important actors in the field of migration and integration policy, both in terms of the design and implementation of policy and via cities participation in larger international networks. In this text I will explore how one such network, the Council of Europe’s Intercultural Cities programme(ICC), has evolved over its ten year history, not only in terms of membership and geographical coverage, but also in terms of its attempts to respond to changes in global political sensibilities. The analysis presented her attempts to understand how the participation of cities in international networks can have an impact on local dynamics of governance and on public policy. The analysis of city-based inclusion networks makes it possible to see not only the shifting dynamics of power between cities and states, but also the impact of international networks on cities’ abilities to mobilise locally or subnationally.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Irena Guidikova, Phil Wood, Robin Wilson, Jorge Jimenez, Daniel de Torres Barderi, Oliver Freeman, Patrice Allard and Keizo Yamawaki, some of whom offered comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this text.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1. According to the editors of this issue, transnational city networks or ‘TCNs’ have three main characteristics: (1) membership is voluntary; (2) they constitute a form horizontal polycentric governance; (3) they are implemented by city members. Given that in this text I am talking about networks at various levels (international, national, regional) I have opted for the term ‘city-based inclusion networks’.
2. It is important to distinguish between intercultural dynamics in cities and interculturalism as policy (see White Citation2014 on the ‘registers’ of interculturalism). The same can be said for discussions involving multicultural dynamics and multiculturalism (Council of Europe Citation2008).
3. For a detailed description of this concept, see Council of Europe (Citation2009).
4. The White Paper also challenged the inherent communalism multiculturalist thinking by focusing on the recognition of individual citizens as the basic unit of democratic society (see section 3.3).
5. While it may be argued that a distinction should be made between an emancipatory style of nationalism (Scotland, Catalonia, Québec) and a more nativist or authoritarian nationalism (for example Hungary, Italy, or Brazil), the promotion of a particular group-based identity common to these different contexts continues to make nationalist discourse a source of concern, especially for immigrants.
6. Because of their concern about the rise of nationalist sentiment in many parts of Europe, ICC employees have expressed discomfort with certain forms of interculturalism in cities such as Montreal and Barcelona, which for historical reasons are often associated (rightfully or not) with local nationalist movements.
7. As Schinkel (2018) has argued for the concept of ‘integration’, the differences between policy paradigms are perhaps more important as rhetorical breaks than in terms of actual policy design or outcomes. But in my experience working with cities in Québec the difference between multiculturalism and interculturalism is a recurring preoccupation for civil servants and elected officials, and not only in terms of rhetoric or optics (White Citation2019).
8. The original 11 pilot cities included: Berlin-Neukolln, Izhhevsk, Lublin, Lyon, Melitopol, Neuchâtel, Oslo, Patras, Reggio-Emilia, Subotica, Tilburg.
9. Robin Wilson’s (Citation2018) fascinating historical analysis of diversity policy in Europe explains the global context which contributed to the development of the Council of Europe’s intercultural paradigm, especially the idea that cities be seen as key players in promoting inclusion and social justice.
10. See link for current list of ICC experts: https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/icc-experts/-/asset_publisher/7TETDuGseIIi/content/jimenez-ortega-jorge?inheritRedirect=false
11. For more information, follow this link: https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/how-to-join-. The most recent version of the questionnaire is 30 pages long: https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/about-the-index
12. Regardless of size, cities are required to pay an annual fee of 5000 euros. For small and medium-sized cities this fee can be a considerable barrier to participation. Apparently the problem of paying fees has been more acute with older members of the network.
13. There are approximately ten national networks of intercultural cities recognised by ICC. For more information: https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/networks.
14. See Vertovec (Citation2019) and White (Citation2017) for a more detailed discussion of the diversity paradigm.
15. See Wood and Landry (Citation2008) for information about the intellectual environment that inspired their pioneering work on intercultural cities.
16. This has not always been the case for activities and events. As resources become increasingly scarce, ICC offers simultaneous translation for most but not all events. In cities where French and English are not widely spoken, it can be difficult for participants to access information about ICC. To a certain extent national networks have been helpful with translation, but ICC is increasingly experimenting with automatic translation, which has improved but still requires additional editing.
17. In Québec the use of English by international institutions is a matter of ongoing concern and a number of local actors familiar with ICC have expressed concern about linguistic barriers to participation in the network.
18. In May 1993 the Council of Europe voted a resolution to include the participation of non-European states in the council’s regular activities. Observer status is conditional on the adoption of principals related to human rights and democratic rule of law and until now has been limited to the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan and the Holy See.
20. https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/policy-lab. See Fourot (2007) on the absence of harmonisation in integration policy at the level of programs financed by the EU.
21. As this text was being written, the Council of Europe announced the creation of an intergovernmental working group set up by the Committee of Ministers under the Steering Committee on Anti-Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion. The goal of this working group is to continue the work begun with the policy labs from within the institutional confines of the Council of Europe.
22. As the only Canadian province to have effective control over its immigration and integration policy, Québec has for many years been a leader in terms of promoting interculturalism (White Citationin press).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Bob W. White
Bob W. White is director of the Laboratory for Research on Intercultural Relations (LABRRI) and Professor of Anthropology at the University of Montreal. Since 2012 he has coordinated a multi-sector multidisciplinary research partnership which involves the ethnographic study of intercultural practice and policy in cities. He is the author of Intercultural Cities: Policy and Practice for a New Era, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.