1. Keynote presentation on
diversity management and political
discourses: The “local turn”
by Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Professor of Political
Science, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona)
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració
(GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

2. Framing speech and argument
• If the Europe of citizens has been the EU motto, defining
its paradigm since Maastricht (1992), what it has shown is
that EU citizens are basically urban citizens, and that the
European movement of people is basically an urban
phenomenon, rather than a State one.
• Combining territorial EU mobility and urban citizens, we
can say that a new motto is needed for the coming years:
a Europe of (diverse) cities. I will argue that this motto
is most appropriate given the new migratory (so diversity)
and local dynamics…this is what I refers as the local
turn, the need of a European city framework of
action, with two dimensions: multilevel governance
and discourse/practice/opinion.
• A shift from Citizens to Cities….

3. • We are going from a State-centered framework to a more
City-centered framework
• …but if cities/diversity is the nexus …it poses
plenty of challenges, which need to be discussed in
order to construct a European city framework of
action. We are just at the beginning of the
inclusion of this dynamics of cities in EU.
• The main purpose of my key-note is to give
justifications legitimating this argument:
“the local turn”

4. Structure
1. Framework: Overviewing current discursive
context in Europe: what is new and what is old?
2. Premises: EU institutional overview. “Local turn”
3. Themed Issues 1: External dimension:
Technical-administrative: multi-level governance
4. Themed Issues 2: Internal dimension: socio-
political: (reactive) discourses, policies, public
opinion.
5. Concluding remarks: “Europe of (diverse)
cities” challenges in current decade 2010-20
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

5. 1. FRAMEWORK: OVERVIEWING
CURRENT DISCURSIVE CONTEXT
IN EUROPE: WHAT IS NEW AND
WHAT IS OLD?
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

6. “National sustainability” discourse
• 'national interest‘ focused on arguments around
security, welfare and identity, are the three driven
categories of “the politics of discourse” (the what to say
prevails to the what to do, so that discourse itself
become a policy)
• This reactive discourse is anchored in arguments
generated by traditions (tradition first, neo-
conservatism, ideological racism) and emotions
(citizens first, neo-populistm, populist racism)
• Interplay of the politics of discourse nurtured by
conservatism and populism cover all the electoral
spectrum. Particularly true at local level.

7. Diagnosis: what is new? What is old?
Is not new...
• That there are local political parties with anti-
immigrant and xenophobic discourses... is not new
• That some of these political parties have penetred into
the political system by local channels and with
democratic means, and play, in some countries, a
crucial role as real power alternatives... is also not
new
• That there is a populist wave in most of the traditional
local political parties when speaking on immigration,
due to the difficulty of managing politically the link
between immigration/negative public opinion.... is
also not new

8. What is new?...Local Governments become
new actors
• The behaviour of local governments in incorporating
anti-immigrants measures into their strategic
actions of managing diversity
• The fact of using legal means to manage
diversity...and these legal means are directly
related to national protection and raise the debate
about the limits of diversity (the law of Shador in
France, and now the recent debate on Burka, the
debate to ban legally minarets on Muslim worship
centres in Swiss)...all these conflicts have a local
origin

9. PREMISES: EU OVERVIEW. THE
“LOCAL TURN”.
Linking local/diversity
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

10. European discourse framework
• Institutional discourse: The European institutions have
shown a growing interest local/diversity dynamics, at least
in discourse there is a recognition and a will to promote
dialogue on migration between local authorities, and with
EU
• Academic research: rising interest for local-level migration
and integration policies. Some case /comparative studies,
• The EU is also considering this ‘local turn’ in last
documents. The city/diversity nexus is in EU agenda. Time
to strengthen and promote EU-Cities relationship.
• But…Why cities? Why this local turn now? Why this
cities/diversity nexus is becoming important? … at least
three main reasons…

11. Reason 1. From inside: Triple Pressure of cities : Citizens
public opinion, Conflicts diversity-related requesting
immediate policy answers, and electoral system that press
city governments through populist and neo-conservative
discourses
Reason 2.From outside: cities are the main areas where
conflicts are identified, but they have problems of
competencies to manage them. This intergovernmental
problem is growing and become itself a structural problem, so
that the only alternative is to play “enfant terrible”,
becoming active agent drawing their own key-
questions/answer to challenges and so posing problems of
policy-coherence between levels of government, and among
cities.
Reason 3. State/local discrepancy: who does and who
decides dichotomy. policy statements calling for an
increased role of local processes and the formulation and
implementation of these policies, yet eminently national level.

12. • local governments are shifting from a passive to an
active role, not in the sense to implement and develop
policies, but politically because they are a source of
innovation and of new frameworks of relationship
with other levels of government.
• From the multilevel governance perspective, the
problem is not the transition from passivity to activity,
but rather that this is done in an uncoordinated
manner, leading to inconsistency, to provide feedback
to neo-populism and neo-conservatism In fact there are
at least three main causal factors explaining why this
“local move” needs an EU attention
1) Economic /Financial Crisis
2) Growing neo-populism and neo-conservatism
3) Limitation of most National/State governments
economical funds for local authorities

13. Some issues
• equality/rights: The accommodation of diversity that
implies the presence of immigrants cannot depend on a
"sovereign" municipal. We cannot allow that the dignity of
immigrants be in the hands of local governments that do
what they can because they do not receive government
support
• Democratic machinery: This “growing speculation” of
municipal diversity management, can easily be
instrumentalised by local political parties, and nurture neo-
populist discourse, that, as the financial speculator, acts
without a public interest of equality.

14. Declaration EUROPEAN MINISTERIAL
CONFERENCE ON INTEGRATION (ZARAGOZA,
15 and 16 APRIL 2010)
• “Considering that cities and their districts are privileged areas
to foster intercultural dialogue and promote cultural diversity and
social cohesion, it is important for local governments to
develop and obtain capacities to better manage diversity
and combat racism, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination.
For that purpose, they should aim to develop tools that help them
to design public policies adapted to the diverse needs of the
population. In this context, it is necessary to take into account the
spatial dimensions of integration challenges, such as segregated
neighbourhoods. In order to fight inequality, it is necessary to
invest in districts with a high immigrant concentration”
• To incorporate integration issues in all relevant policy areas
guaranteeing appropriate cooperation and coordination
between different levels of government and public
administration (European, national, regional and local) is
essential. Mainstreaming integration is important in order to
develop inclusive policies that should provide for specific
measures whenever necessary and feasible.

15. THEMED ISSUES 1: TECHNICAL-
ADMINISTRATIVES: MULTI-LEVEL
GOVERNANCE
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

16. This “EU local turn” can contribute to best
understanding:
1) why and how cities behave differently to
same challenges immigration diversity
related, and
2) why/how this behavior can also politicize
immigration and affect the relationship with
other level of governments and with their
own local diverse society.

17. External/internal dimensions
• Externally following EU multi-level governance
and policies: how cities play a prominent role in
diversity governance, and what are the key-
issues on multilevel governance related to
coordination, cooperation and
intergovernamental relations, and
• Internally with the local diverse societies
through diversity policies and intercultural
strategies.
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

18. Vertical/horizontal dimension
• ‘vertical’ dimension: relations between cities and higher
levels of government: either regional, state or EU.
• horizontal’ dimension among cities. Level-specific
studies, such as comparative studies of cities (preferably in
different countries) and their policies in various migration
(borders, reception, admission, citizenship issues), diversity
(religion, cultural, urban/education concentration) and
integration issues (housing, education, work, social service
and welfare).
• Bringing together work on the vertical and horizontal
dimension will contribute to a better theoretical
understanding of the local turn in migrant integration
policies and academics.

19. THEMED ISSUES 2: SOCIO-
POLITICAL: DISCOURSES,
POLICIES, PUBLIC OPINION
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

20. • Diversity management: legal, not political: Govenments-agents.
speeches and policy initiatives that seek regulate dynamic diversity in
the public sphere. The fact that governments are beginning to use
legal rather than policy means. Why use legal means? Why are policy
means not thought sufficient? Why use legal means for protection
rather than innovation, given the advantages of diversity?
• Limiting diversity: Who watches the watchers? We are now in a
“discursive laissez faire", in which it seems that anything goes in
discourse and practice, with legal limits only existing against the
promotion of physical violence. Who limits reactive discourse?
• Can we move away from a national sustainability approach?
rhetoric of “national sustainability”, EU Stockholm programme (a
“Europe that protects”), characterised by economic crisis, a factor
contributing to the rise of negative public opinion. We are witnessing
a re-nationalisation of citizenship, which is highly reactive. Why do
we have this citizenship policy rhetoric here (Europe) and now (within
the crisis of multicultural policy approaches)? Can we envisage any
moral, political or legal limits to these restrictions on diversity?

21. CONCLUDING REMARKS: EUROPE
OF (DIVERSE) CITIES” CHALLENGES
IN CURRENT DECADE 2010-20
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

22. • Key question 1 : policy coherence and local borders:
how to coordinate local government and policies to avoid
the creation of local borders?
• Key-Question 2: How can we reduce the gap between
Discourse and Policies?
• Key-Question 3: How can we define diversity policies in
terms of indicators of governance?
• Key-Question 4: How to deal with the tradition and
diversity nexus, and avoid its potential racism?
• Key-question 5: how to combine diversity policies with
cohesion and development?
•
Grup de Recerca Interdisciplinari Sobre Immigració (GRITIM-UPF)
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
www.upf.edu/gritim

23. Grup de Recerca
Interdisciplinari
www.upf.edu/gritim sobre Immigració
http://dcpis.upf.edu/~ricard-zapata/
Ricard ZAPATA-BARRERO
(ricard.zapata@upf.edu)
Departament de Ciències Polítiques i
Socials
Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona)