Lessons from a comparative study of Manchester and Copenhagen: “The approaches adopted by Manchester City Council and the City of Copenhagen present two very different approaches to ethnic diversity policy-making...”
Uddrag af rapportens konklusion:
“By linking employment with ‘integration’, the City of Copenhagen presents a markedly different approach to ethnic diversity policy-making.
In contrast to the ‘softer’ approach of Manchester’s Community Change and Perception Monitoring Tool, the authority’s Integration Barometer potentially offers a more rigorous approach and perhaps suggests an appreciation of the importance of tackling structural inequalities. However, whilst the UK approach can be criticised for presenting ‘community’ as convenient ‘fix-all’, the view that employment is the way to tackle marginalisation amongst migrant communities is similarly narrow.
As a number of interviewees highlighted in the Copenhagen phase of the research, some migrant groups face a range of barriers to entering the labour market, not least discrimination from potential employers. Therefore, the plausibility of the link between employment and ‘integration’ must be considered within a wider context of hostility towards migrants at national level.
The approaches adopted by Manchester City Council and the City of Copenhagen present two very different approaches to ethnic diversity policy-making. This research does not provide answers as to how best to strike the right balance between the ‘structural’ and the ‘social-cultural’ approach. However, there is a strong case to be made for the role of local economic development activity within the sphere of ethnic diversity policy-making. Indeed, in the UK context, one of the criticisms of the ‘community cohesion’ concept is that it fails to challenge the underlying economic causes of community tension. The ‘social-cultural’ approach can only go so far and it is misguided to see it as counteract to systemic inequalities.