Abstract
The main purpose of this article is to analyse Barcelona’s mainstreaming approach to intercultural policy from the beginning of its immigration process. My key questions are threefold: (a) why was Barcelona attracted by the intercultural approach so early in 1997? (b) how can we understand the consolidation of interculturalism? and (c) how can its successful permanent endurance (16 years) be explained, given different migratory contexts/political governments? I will argue that Barcelona’s status as a key player within the multi-level system of Catalan and Spanish governance has been a favourable key factor.
I will first feature the mainstreaming approach, and then defend the argument that the vertical dimension has helped to strengthen the legitimacy of the horizontal dimension, as it has provided a favourable environment in which interculturalism can flourish. I conclude by highlighting the fact that the analysis of Barcelona helps to provide new meanings for the multi-level governance debate in diverse European cities.
Points for practitioners
Multi-level governance and cities networks influence the policy design and the consolidation of cities’ diversity policies. There is an assumed link for cities between intercultural policies and the mainstreaming approach in diversity policies. The relationship between the vertical and horizontal dimensions of multi-level governance plays a key role in promoting a favourable environment for these policies to thrive.
Introduction
The background for this article is recognition of the existence of two interconnected dynamics in the current European policy debate. First, there is a common trend in Europe to go from a state-centred towards a local-centred approach in diversity policies, where cities are increasingly recognized not only as implementers of policies, but also as new players in their building processes. 1 Second, within this context, an increasing number of cities are opting for interculturalism as a new policy paradigm. There are many European institutional documents and initiatives evidencing this link. 2 On 15 January 2015 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation on the Intercultural Cities (ICC) approach, recognizing it as a way forward and recommending it to cities and governments. 3 Policy and academic debate on this recommendation is now open in Europe and elsewhere. 4
Barcelona exemplifies the interconnection of these two dynamics, as a result of the city’s status as a key player within the multi-level system of Catalan and Spanish governance (Zapata-Barrero, 2013). Furthermore, Barcelona was one of the first European cities to officially adopt the intercultural lens – in 1997 – even before the launching of the Intercultural Cities Programme by the Council of Europe, which happened ten years later, in 2008. As a result, Barcelona is now leading internationally in this field and is ranked sixth in the Intercultural Cities Index. 5
The main purpose of this article is to assess Barcelona’s mainstreaming approach to intercultural policy from the beginning of its immigration process. My key questions are threefold: (a) why was Barcelona attracted by the intercultural approach so early in 1997? (b) how can we understand the consolidation of this approach? and (c) how can its successful permanent endurance (16 years) be explained, given different migratory contexts and political governments? I will argue that Barcelona’s status as a key player within the multi-level system of Catalan and Spanish governance has been a favourable key factor for understanding its initial attraction to the mainstreaming approach assumed in interculturalism, its consolidation and its current permanence.
Considering the multi-level governance approach of this Special Issue, 6 my focus links the vertical dimension – specifically the relationship between Barcelona and the EU level, but also the role of Barcelona as the capital of a national Catalan community in a multi-national Spain (Zapata-Barrero, 2012) – and the horizontal dimension, mainly centred in the relationship between Barcelona’s government and local social and political actors. I argue that the vertical dimension has helped to strengthen the legitimacy of the horizontal dimension, as it has provided a favourable environment in which interculturalism can flourish. Namely, Barcelona’s governance tradition as the main reference for the Catalan national community, as well as its connections with the EU and diverse European cities networks, has provided the necessary foundation to facilitate a favourable environment for the rise and consolidation of interculturalism. Being present in most of the European institutions and having direct knowledge from the beginning of its immigration process of the way that most European states and cities accommodate diversity, Barcelona opted to build its own mainstreaming approach towards interculturalism, while also strengthening its ‘differentiated way’ as the capital of Catalonia, within Spain.
Methodologically, I will consider the basic key institutional programmes and identify the main structural innovations, as well as current policies and practices, which will be mentioned throughout the analysis. I have also conducted two semi-structured interviews with the relevant policy-makers who have promoted the intercultural approach: Mr Daniel de Torres, who was the first Commissioner for Immigration in 2007, and Mr Ramón Sanahuja, who directed the Immigration Department during several legislatures (until February 2015).
In the first section, I will address the question of Barcelona’s attraction to interculturalism by highlighting its initial nexus to the mainstreaming approaches: the vertical engagement to Europe was an initial favourable factor at the beginning and throughout the entire process. Furthermore, Barcelona plays a leading role as the Catalan capital in the multi-level structure of Spain. In the second section, I will apply a comprehensive view of interculturalism to understand its current consolidation. This will provide an overview of how Barcelona has progressively shaped its mainstreaming intercultural approach, involving other departments and social/political actors. In the third section, I will address the favourable political and social environment in Barcelona, which can help one understand the permanence of the intercultural paradigm. Here the horizontal dimension of multi-level governance becomes evident. I will then conclude in the final section by discussing the fact that the mainstreaming comprehensive approach shaping Barcelona’s interculturalism helps both to provide new definitions for the multi-level governance debate in diverse European cities and to strengthen the link between the mainstreaming approach and intercultural policies.
Why was Barcelona attracted to interculturalism so early? Barcelona’s mainstreaming public philosophy
Why was Barcelona attracted by the narrative of interculturalism at the beginning of its immigration process in 1997, and how did it identify its primary focus? The answers are linked both to its earlier engagement to European networks and to the will to build a differentiated approach as a leading city in Spain and capital of the Catalan national community. Interculturalism helps to affirm its cultural rights and identity. The approach was based on a wish to keep immigrant management as part of the mainstream policy employed towards its citizens.
This early commitment is probably related to the fact that Barcelona is a new immigration city compared to others in Europe. Barcelona had already entered into European cities networks, such as Eurocities, 7 prior to the beginning of its immigration process, thus setting up the vertical dimension of the multi-level governance framework. This link was motivated by an interest in seeing what other European cities were doing, and this laid the groundwork for Barcelona to cultivate its own differentiated way. Dissatisfaction with the two policy models already existing – assimilation and multiculturalism – contributed to the will to adopt an approach that distinguished the city in multi-national Spain. Barcelona's governance tradition was also driven by its identity as a beacon of the Catalan minority culture within Spain. This fact confirms that the intercultural paradigm first attracted minority nationals (as also occurred in Quebec and Montreal) because of its call for power-sharing and cultural symmetry between minority and majority cultures. 8
Within this governance tradition, immigration management followed what was labelled from the beginning as a principle of normalization. This principle meant that immigrants’ needs had to be addressed by services, facilities and programmes aimed at the whole population. This can also be interpreted as a ‘mainstreaming approach for inclusion’ (Collet and Petrovic, 2014). The ultimate goal is to create public services that are attuned to the needs of the whole population, regardless of national and cultural origin. It has recently been defined as an effort to reach people with a migration background through needs-based social programming and policies that also target the general population (Collet and Petrovic, 2014: 2). The concept of mainstreaming is the background for labelling intercultural policy as a ‘citizenship policy’ or even as a ‘programme of new citizenship’ (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2009), illustrating the political will to incorporate immigrants’ issues into the common pattern of public policies.
Within the tension between specific policies and generic (normalization) policies (what it is now called ‘mainstreaming strategy’), Barcelona always opted for generic policies or, alternatively, for generic policies of specific action (Zapata-Barrero, 2002). That is, Barcelona situated specific actions within the overall general framework of public action. Thus, in its initial engagement to European networks the city embraced interculturalism as the most appropriate policy paradigm for carrying out this mainstreaming philosophy. This has motivated Barcelona policy-makers to prevent development of any multicultural specific, group and ethnic-based policies. Accordingly, special services for immigrants are incorporated within this strategy. For instance, in December 1998, the Office for Non-discrimination 9 was created within a comprehensive programme of defence of citizenship and as a reference observatory in the city. It incorporated all categories of discrimination within the same target groups: gender, cultural minorities, physical and mental health, age and social class discrimination. The Office is part of the Civil Rights Department and it is incorporated within the mainstream ombudsman citizenship circuit (servei d’atenció ciutadana).
From a multi-level governance perspective, Barcelona has determined its ‘own way’ and tried, from its very beginning, to go beyond the administrative role of service delivery. Furthermore, as a capital of a national culture within Spain, it has also sought to avoid becoming a mere executor of policies decided at other levels of government. The crisis experienced by ‘classical’ models of governance is proof that, by following interculturalism, the Catalan capital ‘has avoided mistakes made by other cities and countries,’ according to one of the interviews with the Director of Immigration (Mr Ramón Sanahuja). The intercultural approach emerges, then, as a reactive trend against traditional models. This is highlighted in the model’s foundational documents and repeated several times during Mr Sanahuja’s interview: For years, countries have adopted different versions of multiculturalism, giving great value to the respect for and recognition of difference, but forgetting to strengthen common issues between citizens. In some cases, this has led to segregation and social fragmentation. Other countries have adopted the assimilationist model, which has focused on the principle of equality through the adoption of the receiving society’s values, identity and culture. This model has tended to smother signs of diversity, causing disaffections of identity that have likewise not favoured cohesion. (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2010)
How can we understand the consolidation of Barcelona’s interculturalism? a comprehensive progressive implementation of interculturalism
To deal with this second key question, I will first introduce a rough interpretative framework, consisting of considering interculturalism as an approach composed of three policy drivers. 10 This comprehensive overview is the most theoretical part of the article, allowing us to understand how Barcelona approaches intercultural governance. At this point, Barcelona’s policies contribute to the conceptual debate. Intercultural policies, like diversity, 11 are now much more accepted in Europe than is multiculturalism, but the challenge today is to demonstrate its differentiated contents and aims. 12 The second empirical section shows that this view was the direct result of the city’s mainstreaming strategy.
Interpretative framework: A comprehensive view of interculturalism
Understood from the beginning as a policy promoting interaction in the social dynamics of diversity, the first key question is how to justify interculturalism as an intervention in the city’s plans to accommodate immigrants. Three hypotheses form the basis for interculturalism as a mainstreaming strategy for inclusion.
The social hypothesis says that diversity tends to provoke segregation and exclusion, and reduces social capital, either through social inequality or through information and knowledge transfer among immigrants and citizens (see, for instance, Putnam, 2007). Interculturalism seeks to restore social cohesion, trust and feelings of belonging, through social equality policies, in addition to policies that try to promote knowledge formation and prejudice reduction. The political hypothesis argues that diversity tends to alter the traditional expression of national identities, threatening traditional values and the system of rights and duties, which ensure a common sense of loyalty and stability between citizens and the basic structure of society. In this case, the promotion of interaction seeks to maintain control of any justified change in national traditional values, protecting equilibrium between the loyalty of citizens and the rights of immigrants (see, for instance, Bouchard, 2012). The cultural hypothesis rests on the view that citizens’ and immigrants’ cultural capabilities are not fully developed in a diverse society. Left alone, diversity tends to close off the cultural opportunities of diverse people. Interculturalism, as a mainstreaming policy of interaction, seeks to promote the development of cultural rights, creativity and innovation in diverse societies (see, for instance, Bennett, 2001).
Each hypothesis develops a theory that informs each policy driver. Answering the social hypothesis requires the development of a social theory of diversity and follows a cohesion driver, grounded in Allport’s (1954) well-known contact theory (roughly speaking, that contact reduces prejudice and promotes knowledge formation), and based on Cantle’s (2008) view of interculturalism as community cohesion. Hence, supporting interaction involves transforming initial conflict zones into areas of positive contact in order to ensure an optimal living situation. The basic aim is reduction of social conflict – a broader notion encompassing racism, poverty and social exclusion (Cantle, 2012: 102). The promotion of social participation and incorporation of immigrants into the main social networks of the city are also main priorities in fostering cohesion. Interculturalism is a way, then, to avoid the segregation of people, which can otherwise lead to social exclusion, disturbances and social inequalities, especially in neighbourhoods and cities. 13
To react to the political hypothesis we need to develop a political theory of diversity and follow a contractual driver. A recent illustration of this view is the work of Bouchard (2012), basically centred on managing the relationship between immigrants and the basic structure of society, ensuring what Bouchard calls ‘the survival of national identity,’ avoiding dualism in society between traditional values and diversity. This theory seeks to provide the most appropriate spaces for motivating agreements between national tradition and the context of diversity, through participative policy channels and other means of vertical communication. Its purposes are to manage the potential impact that changes can have on tradition, to regulate the behaviour of nationals, and to minimize impacts on the loyalty of citizens and the rights/duties of immigrants (especially equal opportunities).
Lastly, if we want to formulate policy reactions to the cultural hypothesis, we need to frame a cultural theory of diversity and follow a constructivist driver. This theory is based on promoting the cultural capabilities of people, understood in terms of the cultural goods and resources needed to develop creative and innovative cultural capacities in society. Interculturalism is a way to produce something new as a product of interaction, which helps the cultural development of persons qua citizens (Zapata-Barrero, 2015b). This approach also has a different view of diversity, basically considering it an asset. From this point of view, interculturalism can then be seen as a strategy that promotes a context of mutual development. 14
We can use these three policy drivers as standards for interpreting the process of building an intercultural mainstreaming policy following a multi-level governance approach. However, they have an analytical function as well. In the case of Barcelona I will use these three policy drivers as standards to identify three progressive stages of development since 1997. I will finish by arguing that the real challenge the city faces today is balancing these normative frameworks in a comprehensive way through current mainstreaming practices.
Political and administrative plans and strategies since 1997: shaping the mainstreaming intercultural policy lens
Let me now highlight the distinctive features of Barcelona’s intercultural policies since its first programme in 1997, identifying the main guiding trends, conceptual innovations and institutional changes, as well as a selection of practices. The analysis is mainly focused on how the city of Barcelona shapes its mainstreaming intercultural lens and strengthens multi-level governance.
I can identify at least three stages in the evolution of mainstreaming intercultural policy, starting with the contractual policy driver. Barcelona put into place the main channels for promoting vertical interaction between immigrants and the basic structure of city institutions, taking into account citizens’ basic values, traditions, services and needs. This was followed by the cohesion policy driver, centred on understanding intercultural policies in terms of horizontal cohesion and on building coexistence or a ‘living together’ (convivència), from the 2002 plan until 2010. At that time a new plan paved the way for the constructivist policy driver, seeking to promote the diversity advantage view, or the view of diversity as a public resource for city development. These three stages are obviously accumulative, and guided by the mainstreaming strategy for inclusion. Today Barcelona is trying to equilibrate these three policy drivers through different policy programmes. This combination of paying attention to tradition (the contractual policy driver), along with social inequality (cohesion policy driver), while developing diversity resources through the cultural abilities of citizens (constructivist policy driver), is one of the keys to the continuity and consolidation of the intercultural strategy.
Immigration plans and intercultural stages in Barcelona
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Contractual stage: In 1997, when foreign residents represented only 2 percent of the population, the city council had already defined its pioneering Municipal Plan for Interculturality (Pla Municipal per a la Interculturalitat). Considering the low number of immigrants, the plan’s approach was innovative: ‘the notion of citizenship means the capability of integration, which must allow not only the preservation of immigrants’ cultural characteristics but also favour their interrelation with other cultures and their inclusion in city life’ (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 1997: 5). The plan’s main principles and strategies are contractual in nature: equal rights, equal opportunities, intercultural services, creating channels of participation, coordination, and agreement and cooperation between immigrants and the basic structure of the city council.
The notion of interculturalism was semantically used to refer to the different mechanisms to put into place the vertical relation between immigrants and institutions, respecting the values and rights of immigrants and citizens. It tried to avoid any specific group-based policies. The notion was thus a way to emphasize the mainstreaming philosophy behind reception policies, which seek to connect immigrants to the general channels of Barcelona’s institutional life.
Cohesion stage: Later, throughout the great arrival of immigration flows in 2002 (when the growth rate was 53.8%), 15 the main goal of the Municipal Plan for Immigration 2002–2008 (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2002) was to provide a framework for identifying migratory phenomena and to achieve ‘real’ (in its own words) integration of immigrants at all levels of city life in Barcelona. The plan hoped this would guarantee social cohesion, together with labour and housing opportunities, and access to the rights and obligations of citizens according to their administrative situation. This plan used nine principles: equity, social cohesion, living together, cultural diversity, normalization, participation, temporality, transversal policies and consensus. During this period, the term interculturalism and the expression ‘living together’ were used almost interchangeably, and corresponded to what was probably best formulated by Ted Cantle as community cohesion (Cantle, 2008).
This plan was highly focused on how to manage the hosting of immigrants in the city, how to provide social services, and how to promote social cohesion alongside values of diversity. Although the focal point was reception, key concepts of the intercultural paradigm were identified, already highlighting the importance of citizen participation in the management of diversity or the need for transversal work between different areas of the city council. In 2002, one of the most important institutional innovations also came into operation: the Intercultural Mediation Service, 16 whose objective was to serve as a link between immigrants, civil servants and the native population, and also among groups of diverse cultural origin, seeking to promote participation and to extend the implicit idea that interaction matters as an integration strategy. The basic objective was to put into place institutional mechanisms to ensure social cohesion (or to avoid social conflicts). Interculturalism offers this mediation service as a communication strategy between three players (immigrants, citizens and administration), in addition to highlighting its function: convivència or living together.
In fact, this institutional discourse on mainstreaming lies along three strategic lines: favouring integration within the framework of social cohesion; defending and spreading the values of diversity and living together; and preventing conflictive situations. 17 Although newcomers are still seen as passive actors who require basic social assistance for integration, the plan nevertheless points out key concepts of the intercultural approach, such as immigrant participation and transversal communication among departments. The plan stressed: ‘citizenry participation is one of the main ways for the plan to be successful which permits managing the change in diversity.’ 18 Furthermore, it discusses the notion of transversal policies: ‘Immigrants’ integration must take place in all areas of city life which needs coordinated and transversal work between different municipal areas and the sectors involved.’ The last institutional innovation of this plan was to define and consolidate a new policy title, capable of developing multi-level leadership at the social (speaking with civil society and networking with associations), political (having the capacity to negotiate directly with politicians) and administrative (being authorized by the city mayor to enter and influence interdepartmental intercultural strategy) levels.
The Commissariat for Immigration was created in June 2007, and implemented as a main innovation under the next plan (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2008). It is probably the best illustration and evidence of the multi-level governance approach of Barcelona’s intercultural strategy. The commissioner (Daniel de Torres, who has been interviewed), became a leading expert for the Intercultural Cities Programme of the Council of Europe, thus ensuring a direct transfer of knowledge to policy practices. This new actor within the multi-level governance framework was key to ensuring the mainstreaming approach of interculturalism. It was also evidenced that personal influence counts – namely, the particular sensitivity and openness of Commissioner de Torres to the intercultural approach was central to understanding both the consolidation and the extension of the intercultural philosophy. I would say that this subjective factor should not be underestimated. On the contrary, the high political sensitivity and progressiveness of people driving the intercultural policy over the years and the fact that they have used their European engagement strategically as a lever to promote legitimacy and consensus are key factors. Nevertheless, at first sight we are left with a question regarding the Commissariat for Immigration: is there not a risk of recreating the separation between newcomers and other citizens with such an institutional arrangement? In fact, the Commissariat was created precisely to connect the management of immigrants’ different administrative situations with the mainstreaming of their citizenship rights and responsibilities; only thus can its role be understood as a bridge between immigrants and citizens.
Besides immigration plans, it is important to point out further steps towards interculturalism as a multi-level mainstreaming strategy. In 2004, Barcelona adopted Agenda 21 for Culture, a tool promoting the role of culture in local policies, based on the principles of cultural diversity, human rights, intercultural dialogue, participatory democracy, sustainability and peace in a local context. Agenda 21 for Culture was chaired by the Barcelona City Council until 2012, when the city of Lille took its turn. In 2005, the city council also supported the UNESCO Convention on Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
In 2008, the European Union launched the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, leading Barcelona’s city council to lay the foundations for transforming this initial intercultural discourse into a mainstreaming strategy: a new public culture based on diversity and also a structural change in Barcelona’s cultural policies (Martí and Giner, 2008: 5). The Barcelona Intercultural Dialogue (2008–2012) fostered hundreds of activities for promoting debates and dialogue within the context of the Barcelona Intercultural Dialogue Programme, engaging a wide range of agents of civil society and citizenship into intercultural dialogue as a way of facilitating coexistence. 19 These activities fostered a better understanding of the new social reality and tried to illustrate diversity as an advantage for Barcelona’s society. Immigrant participation and intercultural dialogue became the cornerstones of this programme that lay the groundwork for the current interculturality plan.
Constructivist stage: In this same year, the city council approved, with the consensus of all political parties, the new Municipal Immigration Plan (2008–2011) (Pla Municipal per a la Immigració), which updated the measures of the 2002 municipal plan. It outlined five lines of action, the fourth of which referred to nurturing interculturality in order to guarantee full integration. One of these measures included the drafting of the Barcelona Interculturality Plan (2010), which represented the beginning of the third stage – the constructivist strand of interculturalism – because it goes one step further in fostering interaction as a public resource and good. It also stresses the idea that all city council sectors be willing to work together to determine transversal policies. The fact that this plan was developed separately is also an indicator of the willingness of the city council not only to engage in this intercultural strategy, but also to make it visible to society and, in this way, to use it as a way of mainstreaming discourse for communication.
In light of the multi-level focus of this special issue, we note that the Barcelona Interculturality Plan was itself elaborated through intercultural and transversal means: over 3000 people and 250 organizations collaborated to create the Plan through an interactive network in which all departments of the city council participated, together with the main networks of civil society. Communication was also a crucial aspect. In 2009, Barcelona launched a website information portal called ‘New Citizens’, whose objective was/is to provide all basic information for newcomers, the general public, and all people interested in learning about immigration realities in the municipality. 20
This resulting plan (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2010) is based on a triad of principles: equity, recognition of diversity and positive interaction. Its main rationale is that without interaction there is no socialization, and without socialization citizens miss the possibility to reinforce the common and shared aspects that foster individual and social development. Interaction is normally determined by many factors: real equity in rights and obligations, social mobility, a common language, and public spaces that promote inclusion or exclusion, etc. The purpose of the plan is to provide a scenario where citizens from diverse origins are able to socialize freely, having the opportunity for self-development. During the time that this plan was in effect, a new institutional mechanism emerged to promote interaction through language and culture – the new agency called Espai Avinyó (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2010) – with the specific objective of promoting intercultural values and what I might call a culture of diversity (Zapata-Barrero, 2014). This new structure is a clear example of mainstreaming governance according to the constructivist policy driver of interculturalism.
We now reach the current Barcelona Immigration Plan (2012–2015) (Pla d’Immigració de Barcelona). The new policy focus is mainly influenced by the effects of the economic crisis. Barcelona is facing a new, changing reality which has to do with stagnation in the number of arrivals of the immigrant populations and a consequent decrease of reception services, from 18.1 percent in 2009 to 17.4 percent in 2012 of demand for services. This new socio-demographic context, together with the decrease in the use of public reception services, led the city council to elaborate a new immigration plan.
The new plan also makes a clear commitment to encourage transversality in all areas and sectors of the city council to ensure consideration of the entire continuum of the incorporation process. There is a change in priorities, in terms of immigration policy, and therefore of the paradigm: Barcelona must move from reception to diversity accommodation strategies, where immigrants are no longer seen as passive and ‘assisted’ actors or as welfare-holders, but rather as participative citizens in all spheres of the city. Diversity is categorized clearly as an added value for society, and the strategy thus associates diversity with creativity and social and urban innovation that contribute to city development. There is a conceptual innovation that drives this new policy focus: the notion of a community of citizens designated as the new policy target. Through this new notion we can see there are three clearly mainstreaming new dimensions: (a) the fact that the policy target is citizenship, understood in the urban sense as inhabitants of the city; (b) the fact also that the policy reinforces the idea of community, which basically means common feelings of identity; and finally, but not least importantly, (c) the fact that, taken together, the application of this notion at the local level maintains the sense that Schnapper (1994) defends at the state level: the feeling of a community of destination rather than origin, drawn from the republican idea that citizenship can only be defined through action and common projects. The dimensions of living together, working for a common project and interacting in the public space also belong to this notion, as does the idea that a sense of community and identity can be built through such joint action. In all cases, this new mainstreaming strategy seeks to oust the traditional approach of accommodation of diversity policies, refocusing the policy lens from a centred and static fixed point to a much more mobile and dynamic process, one that results from interpersonal contact. Its main objective is to promote a common space, a public culture, and a community of citizens who identify with the city and participate in its projects.
This conceptual innovation offers evidence that interculturalism as a mainstreaming policy strategy is now consolidated. However, in order to achieve a community of citizens, all people must share a common core: a feeling of belonging to the city, which is far more realistic than achieving a national sentiment. Urban identity is created through daily proximity, taking children to school, going to the market, walking the streets of one’s neighbourhood or enjoying a holiday. This concept also reflects the idea that everyone who is part of the same local community should feel like a protagonist in building this local identity.
In keeping with the vertical dimension of the multi-level governance approach, I can say that interculturality represents a new mainstreaming policy trend not just in the city of Barcelona. This intercultural strategy has also received international recognition and, in keeping with its European tradition, Barcelona continues committed to the main network of cities. This European recognition and involvement are certainly used to legitimate the consolidation of Barcelona’s intercultural practice. We can say then that multi-level governance plays here the role of legitimizing Barcelona’s mainstreaming focus of interculturalism. Let me provide some details.
The importance of the EU and these city networks in the building process of interculturalism as a mainstreaming strategy of action. The Barcelona City Council has made noticeable progress in recent years in the implementation of policies based on the intercultural approach. The city has quickly moved forward in its recognition as an ‘intercultural city’, ranked sixth by the ICC Index (out of more than 30 cities, with the five cities ranking ahead of Barcelona being: Neuchâtel, Oslo, Zürich, Dublin and Montreal). Interculturalism is, in some ways, integral to Barcelona’s identity, and almost seen as a city brand. The city is connected through international projects and networks to urban settings that encourage the intercultural paradigm and the local management of diversity. The council is actively involved in international projects such as Eurocities (from 2009 until 2012 leading the Migration and Integration Working Group, in which more than 30 cities worked jointly on immigration governance), the Intercultural Cities Programme and Mixities networks. Over the course of these years, Barcelona has developed eight intercultural programmes 21 and six agencies/public services. 22 Confirming this designation, in its 2011 evaluation, Mixities recognized that ‘high aspiration and political consensus are key features of Barcelona’s approach to diversity and integration which make it a potential role model for other cities in Europe’. 23 From a vertical multi-level governance point of view and considering other Spanish cities, Barcelona’s place in Catalonia has been as the capital of a differentiated national community within Spain. The city has also been a leading member of the Spanish intercultural cities network since its beginning in 2011 (RECI, www.ciudadesinterculturales.com), mediating between the Council of Europe and Spanish cities. This explains why the city is seen today as a role model by other cities in Spain as well as elsewhere. Barcelona is also active at EU meetings and has an effective general lobbying strategy employed internationally (for instance, the Mayoral Forum on Mobility, Migration and Development organized in June 2014), which helps it to use external allies as advocates in the Spanish policy debate. 24
What explains the successful permanent endurance of the intercultural approach? A favourable environment
Turning now to the horizontal dimension of the multi-level governance framework, let me introduce an additional argument: consensus-building has been a key factor in helping Barcelona develop its intercultural approach within the mainstreaming framework of action. The favourable environment engendered by consensus comes essentially from the social and political arenas, which have each supported the strategy from the beginning, through their own channels. This consensus is certainly the result of Barcelona’s way of incorporating an intercultural strategy, and has been achieved by taking care of specific actions towards immigrants. Actions were not specific to cultural characteristics of the immigrant population, but rather to the process of incorporation within the mainstreaming of the societal body.
As the former Commissioner for Immigration of the city, Daniel de Torres, insists: ‘public discourse on interculturalism targets not only society, but also policy-makers in other departments and the main civil society’s representatives’. This mainstreaming strategy has existed, thus, over 16 years, through five programmes/plans, through three city legislatures (1997–2006, Catalan Socialist Party, PSC; 2006–2011, PSC; and from 2012, Convergence and Union, Nationalistic centre right-wing party, CiU), and even with a change in the government ideology in 2011. Despite all these factors, the main policies’ lines, as put forward by the preceding socialist city government, have been maintained, even as they have been adapted to the new migratory reality.
This framework provided the background for what I consider to be the most favourable environment that frees policy-makers from strong political and social restraints: that is, roughly stated in theoretical terms, the main factors that facilitate the acceptance of interculturalism as a policy paradigm. The social arena has ratified its commitment to intercultural policy through the consultative body. The first consultative council was created in the framework of the first intercultural plan in 1997 with clear mainstreaming governance intentions. The Consell Municipal d’Immigració, composed of immigrant associations and NGOs, has been an information-provider and claims-promoter, but without problematizing this mainstreaming intercultural philosophy. In the political arena the plenary has always encountered a majority of support. For instance, in the latest immigration plan (2012–2015), interculturalism received endorsements from all the political parties except the right wing Popular Party (Partit Popular), which at any rate holds a minority of representation (see Table 1 above).
This favourable environment is also confirmed by the failure of immigration debates during elections to provoke strong conflicts between politics and society, or even a cleavage among political parties. In contrast, other cities surrounding Barcelona, such as Badalona, undertook an aggressive campaign against immigrants, along with other midsize Catalan cities that were susceptible to a new anti-immigrant party, Platform for Catalonia (Plataforma per Catalunya). 25 This absence of anti-immigrant discourse and parties is surely exerting a positive influence on citizens’ public opinions and attitudes. This fact receives a stronger justification when we now see that the financial crisis, which affected all citizens’ mentalities and behaviours, has not foretold a significantly negative reaction towards immigrants, as I will revisit in the concluding remarks. Additionally, the fact that in 2008 Barcelona took new initiatives towards interculturalism in the framework of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue was another favourable factor both at the internal (affecting all city council departments) and external (in public space and civil society) levels. Without this local administrative multi-level governance engagement, the policy development of the intercultural approach would certainly not be possible.
Concluding remarks: what does Barcelona provide to the multi-level governance debate on diversity management?
This article has argued that the mainstreaming comprehensive approach of interculturalism has been possible essentially because Barcelona has linked the vertical and horizontal dimensions of multi-level governance. In building this reference framework, Barcelona also constructed its own approach from the very beginning of its immigration process, with a permanent favourable social and political endorsement, and always legitimating its focus within European concerns and with regard to its relationship with European networks.
I began this article by arguing that one of the clearest signs of the success of this approach is its continuity over time since 1997 (with different immigration contexts and realities and different local governments). This flexibility is one of the primary assets. However, the Mixities report states that the work done in many areas is ‘not yet backed up by systems or structures robust enough to guide and support their work through coming years’. The report notes as a deficiency – also reported by the Intercultural Cities Report – the municipal employment and workforce composition, recruitment policies and procurement. That is, in terms of the interpretative categories we have been examining, there is a certain deficit in mainstreaming governance. This has also been one of the main results shown at the Index of Intercultural Governance, applied to several cities in Spain, and in which Barcelona has been one of the best ranked (Zapata-Barrero, 2016). But this study also shows there is an Intercultural Governance Threshold, directly related to the dimension of representation. Failure in these key areas can be attributed to multi-level governance restraints, namely to the rigid national law and the limitations of the municipal council in terms of legislation. Spanish law limits the recruiting of civil servants to nationals of Spain and to nationals of EU member states. This creates barriers for immigrants and limits the ability of the city council to have a diverse workforce and representation in the main local body of participation.
Institutional documents and interviews with policy-makers have stressed that Barcelona has avoided developing specific policies or even group-based policies that most multiculturalists would defend. Multicultural policies have never explicitly been in immigration plans or in policy-makers’ minds. Instead, specific policies have been linked to particular circumstances related to the particular conditions of immigrants in the accommodation process. Cultural issues related to immigrants’ origin were never interpreted as if they were natural and essential to their national origin but, rather, linked to the process of immigrant incorporation into the mainstream of society. This is key to grasping the intercultural philosophy of Barcelona. Its permanent multi-level approach is surely a factor that helps explain the ongoing social and political support for interculturalism. Surely, this interesting correlation needs to be explored further through a more detailed policy analysis and an accurate selection of concrete practices, such as welcoming linguistic policies, making clear Barcelona’s commitment to its own linguistic Catalan culture. 26 In particular, the Mixities’ peer review found the following good practices: a strong welcoming culture for migrants; exceptional practices such as the Anti-Rumour Campaign, the Family Reunification Programme and a positive approach to conflict management; 27 and strong partnership principles which involved a broad range of stakeholders in the diversity work of the city. Further empirical research of this model of multi-level management would surely test better these first findings.
Footnotes
Notes
.