are in the MOST Phase I website (1994-2003).
The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most.
2. Project Description 3. A general framework for the comparative study
3.2. Central questions
3.3. The 'City template', a preliminary inventory
3.4. Formation of 'clusters'
5. Time table and deliveries for the first two years
In this elaborated project statement the workshop group presents the results of the Amsterdam seminar, integrated in the original project statement. The focus of the Amsterdam seminar was on:
(b) the organizational structure of the MPMC project
To be sure, numerous policies, resources and recommendations have arisen at all levels of governance in all of the EU's member states which address these conditions. Yet all too often immigrant and ethnic minority groups have had little say in the public decisions, policies and resources which effect them. Therefore, such decisions, policies and resources often do not meet the needs, or are not sufficiently engaged or made use of, by immigrant and ethnic minority groups. Consequently, the dire socio-economic conditions and ethno-cultural ambiguities affecting them have not been successfully redressed.
The lack of immigrant and ethnic minority participation in policy-making is significantly conditioned by the fact that many do not have the legal status of citizenship. However, even in those states where some form of citizenship applies, other social and political factors prevent their full public participation. It is a situation, characterised by the political marginalization or total exclusion of these contributing residents, which challenges basic liberal democratic values, core institutional procedures, and even fundamental questions of morality. Together with the political concerns which have been directly voiced by immigrant and ethnic minority groups themselves (characterised by ever more effective forms of organization), it is a state of affairs which has recently stimulated much rethinking with regard to the concept of citizenship in its broadest sense and the idea of a civil society.
Not participating and not being fully accepted in the various societal domains prevents the full development of citizenship by immigrants and ethnic minorities. If citizenship is taken as full participation in the public domain and the exclusion from citizenship is seen as the exclusion from participation in this domain, the concept of citizenship is not only relevant in the political-juridical sphere, but also in the socio-economic and the cultural and religious sphere. That is, in all three societal domains the citizenship concept raises the issue of integration through participation.
It is surely time for a European-wide comparison - linking social scientists,
municipal policy-makers and practitioners, and immigrant/ethnic minority
groups - in order to evaluate the impact of presently used channels of
mobilization and activation  in the domains mentioned above and design
on the basis of such a study desirable future directions for stimulating
participion of immigrants and ethnic minorities. This needs to be accomplished
by direct comparison of policies and practices at the level of cities (taking
into account the policies of differential regional and national regimes)
as well as by way of comparison between national/city policy and recommendations
at the European level.
The project concerns ways in which immigrant and minority groups have gained access (or been confronted with obstacles) to decision-making processes and other ways of participating in the municipal public sphere. This includes the comparative examination of the evolution of local authority frameworks (consultative bodies, forums, ombudsmen), immigrant or ethnic minority associations, and the forms and experiences of liaison between these with regard to matters such as access to public funding, business and other forms of economic development, housing, health care delivery, cultural policy and specific elements urban regeneration. The analysis includes the dynamics of the local with other levels of administration, as far as relevant.
The studies will:  compile comprehensive material regarding social, economic, and political conditions affecting immigrant and ethnic minority groups (including their own patterns and processes of mobilization and expression of interests) in these cities; and  detail the evolution of a range of specific public policies (including regulations, institutions, structures) and their operation as these involve or affect immigrant and ethnic minority populations.
A rigorous comparison and evaluation of structures, processes, strategies
and activities in both 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' levels surrounding these
channels of activation and mobilization in European cities will provide
for (a) constructing and testing a theoretical typology of modes of citizenship
or participation in European cities; and (b) disseminating to, and discussing
with, policy-makers and community representatives a range of municipal
experiences and 'best practice' policy recommendations regarding municipal
policies and the involvement of immigrants and ethnic minorities. Considerable
added value will be obtained by assessing comparatively the diverse policy
experiences of the cities studied, as well as the policies recommendations
at the European level (particularly the concise measures advanced by the
Council of Europe). These areas and levels of comparison will be examined
critically in MPMC seminars.
3. A general framework for the comparative study.
b. the central questions and their background should be clearly formulated and shared by all research teams;
c. an initial inventory of the conditions of each of the case studies
should be made in order to identify relevant local variables and facilitate
Political theorists have contributed significantly to our thinking on citizenship of immigrants, multiculturalism and social exclusion in recent times (Bauböck 1994; Bauböck et al. 1996; Brubaker 1989 and 1992; Hammar 1990; Kymlicka 1995; Soysal 1994; Young 1990). They have developed theoretical models that are challenging and inspiring. Unavoidably in view of the issues concerned, however, the normative aspect in it is often quite strong.
To make the above mentioned theoretical contributions relevant for this empirical research project we have reformulated the broad theoretical concept of citizenship into a descriptive-analytical concept that can be used operationally. We propose that the concept of citizenship should be operationalized in three analytically distinct aspects that should be paid attention to in empirical data collection: the first is the juridical/political aspect which refers to the basic question whether and in how far immigrants and ethnic minorities do have differential formal rights and duties from natives in relation to formal political participation opportunities. It includes not only (access to) national citizenship and thus the formal political system, but also (non-)granting of political rights to non-nationals and the juridical status as aliens as far as this has consequences for political participation.
The second is the socio-economic aspect of citizenship, which pertains to social and economic rights of residents, irrespective of national citizenship; these include industrial rights and rights related to institutionalized facilities in the socio-economic sphere.
The third aspect pertains to the domain of cultural and religious rights of immigrants and minorities and their right to organize as ethnic groups. This implies that such rights should not be viewed a priori as rights of individuals, but also potentially as group rights.
The advantage of using these three analytically distinct aspects of citizenship as a descriptive device is twofold. By describing them separately first, and in doing so covering both the formal system of rights and the practice of these rights, it may become clear later how participation in one domain may influence participation in other domains and under what conditions. From empirical research until now, the extent and direction of such mutual influence is not clear .
The second advantage is that the material collected in this way can be used later for theoretical analysis while the empirical data collection is not hampered by too much theoretical assumptions.
Secondly, it is proposed to study the practice of citizenship and participation from two different perspectives. The first is the 'top-down-approach'. Here the institutional framework of the society of settlement is taken as a starting point and the question is raised in how far that institutional framework is open for participation by immigrants and ethnic minorities, or is opened and activated in the course of time. In this approach the concepts of inclusion/exclusion and 'opportunity structure' are key-concepts for the first part of that question. As far as measures are taken to stimulate participation, the second part of the question, activation seems to be the appropriate concept (as distinct from bottom-up mobilization).
The second is the 'bottom-up-approach'. Here the central focus is on the initiatives taken by immigrants, ethnic minorities and their organizations to stand up for their (political, social and cultural) interests irrespective of institutional structures, alone or in coalition with other actors. The basic concept here is mobilization. The analytical distinction top-down and bottom-up, and activation and mobilization makes it possible to study the interaction between the two processes systematically.
In the process of political activation and mobilization to be described many relevant actors may be involved, particularly since we do not limit participation to the formal political system. For example: trade unions may play an important role (positively or negatively) in the socio-economic domain, and established churches may do so in the religious domain. The research will have to take these actors into account, but will centrally focus on the role of local authorities.
Focussing on local situations and the role of immigrants and local authorities in such situations one can thus identify on the one hand channels of mobilization for immigrants and ethnic minorities for each of the domains mentioned above. In the cultural sphere one can think for example of mobilization through religious or cultural organizations of immigrants and their efforts to establish places of worship, religious courses or courses in imigrant languages, through parents' participation in the educational system of their children to introduce such elements in the school system, etc.
In the socio-economic domain immigrants may mobilize themselves also in many ways: as interest organizations defending or trying to gain social rights; by taking initiatives as enterpreneurs or self help groups.
In the political-juridical domain immigrants may mobilize themselves, depending on the opportunity structure, as pressure groups outside or within existing political parties, by establishing 'immigrant parties' or action groups, or to call for consultative bodies.
On the other hand one can identify the opportunity structure for such action, or the channels of activation. Throughout Europe -- especially at the level of cities -- a range of parallel institutions and policies have been created by way of the common objective of liaising with immigrants and ethnic minorities. These include consultative bodies such as :
(2) Working and Co-ordination Groups (comprised mainly of government departments dealing with immigrants and ethnic minorities, with very few actual members of the latter groups; for the purpose of sharing information and coordinating programmes and activities);
(3) Parliaments or Forums of Migrant Workers or Ethnic Minorities (made up of representatives of immigrant / ethnic minority groups only, in order to articulate their interests and press for the implementation of policies);
(4) Advisory Councils (perhaps the most common type of institution, including representatives of both immigrant / ethnic minority groups and members of government, with broad scope for sharing information, expressing concerns, distributing resources, and lobbying for interests); and
(5) Committees on Migrant or Ethnic Minority Affairs (established by government, with variable makeup but sometimes with decision-making powers).
- In how far can and do immigrants and ethnic minorities make use of existing general structures to participate?
- Did local authorities develop special frameworks for immigrants and ethnic minorities (consultative bodies, forums, ombudsmen); what is the structure of such special frameworks and how do they function in practice?
- What is the content of these participatory efforts in terms of the domains of citizenship: political/juridical, socio-economic, cultural/religious?
(2) How do immigrants and ethnic minority mobilize to improve their position and to influence policies relating to that position?
- What forms does this mobilization take? Are coalitions with other actors sought and found?
- What is the content of these mobilization efforts in terms of the domains of citizenship: political/juridical, socio-economic, cultural/religious?
(3) How do activation policies of authorities and mobilization of immigrants and ethnic minorities interact?
- In how far is there congruence and overlap? In how far mismatch?
- Which activation and mobilization efforts have worked out satisfactory for both parties and which have failed?
3.4. Formation of 'clusters' It is envisaged that in a number of cases it is possible and worthwhile, within that general framework, to establish more specific comparisons between a limited number of cities on specific wel-defined research topics and questions. Research teams that join forces to do such specific comparisons are called 'clusters'.
Research within such a cluster is more restrictive in terms of (a) the specificity of the topic chosen, (b) the theoretical questions which are adressed, and (c) the research methodologies used. Forming a cluster within the general research design implies intensive co-operation between the member of that cluster to design the sub-project in detail before starting. It will also enable researchers to make use of the expertise available in the clustergroup. To facilitate work each cluster will nominate a cluster co-ordinator who is responsible for progress in the cluster. Additionally, cluster co-ordinators provide the (organizational) link between cluster and Coordination Committee (general framework).
The MPMC project will benefit from the establishment of clusters since the comparability of research in the participating cities (and thus in the general project) is improved.
At the Amsterdam seminar the following three clusters were presented:
(2) The role of immigrant and ethnic minority politicians (including the strategies of political parties to catch the 'ethnic vote'); co-ordinator: dr. Marco Martiniello of University of Liège.
(3) Social relations in city neighbourhoods and the role of voluntary organisations in local, multi-ethnic community integration; contact person: dr. Andreas Wimmer.
4. Project Management
Dr. Marco Martiniello (University of Liége)
Prof. dr. Rinus Penninx (IMES, University of Amsterdam)
Dr. Steven Vertovec (Oxford University)
Prof. dr. John Rex
Dr. Rainer Bauböck
Dr. John Crowley
Dr. Nadia Auriat
Carla Collicelli, Fondazione Censis
Dr. Mike Geddes, Local Government Centre
Kathrin Merkle, Council of Europe
Maria José dos Santos Freitas, ELAINE
Dr. Werner Heinz, Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik
WOHNBUND network for urban studies
4. These issues and the needs surrounding such participatory structures have been importantly highlighted by institutions on the European level as well. In cities throughout Europe, for instance, many of these kinds of participatory frameworks and policies have been structured in line with the recommendations made by the Standing Conference on Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) in its 1991 Frankfurt Declaration entitled 'Towards a New Municipal Policy for Multicultural Integration in Europe' and by the Council of Europe in its Final Report on 'Community and Ethnic Relations in Europe' (1991).
Contact informationUNESCO-MOST Programme
Tel: +33 1 45 68 37 99
Fax: +33 1 45 68 57 24
Prof. dr. Rinus Penninx
To MOST Clearing House Homepage