Challenging the 'local turn' in migrant integration in the South East of England under the Coalition and Conservative Governments 2010-2018: a whole policy approach

In recent years increasing bodies of research have supported the idea that integration takes place on the local level (Jimenez 2009, Penninx & Martiniello 2007, Rutter 2015, Jensen 2011). Consequently, when the Coalition government claimed to be ushering in a radical new form of Localism and designated integration as a ‘local issue’, there was an apparent consensus between policy and academia alike that this localist turn was to be ‘welcomed’ (Ali & Gidley, 2014, p. 23). Nevertheless, this apparent consensus makes two assumptions. The first is that Localism is always a positive thing for the local level and the second is that greater autonomy at the local level will materialise in greater migrant integration activities. Consequently, research in this area spans two bodies of academic literature, Localism, and that of the ‘local turn’ in integration policies, and is the first time these two related fields have been combined.

The primary research question of this thesis is “Did the designation of migrant integration as a ‘local issue’ under the Coalition and Conservative Governments 2010-2018 help or hinder the ability of local authorities to facilitate migrant integration in their localities?”. The research uses as its case study the South East (SE) of England as the region is home to the highest number of migrants in the UK second only to London, and has also not been covered in academic research on this area to date. It is also a predominantly rural area and as such adds to much needed research on migrant integration outside of urban or peri-urban settings.

The principal research question is broken down into the following sub questions designed to unpack the aforementioned assumptions.

Did a local turn in migrant integration policy take place under the Localism of the Coalition and Conservative Governments 2010 to 2018?

How can a whole policy approach help us to map the aggregate demand on local authorities when it comes to migrant integration?”

Both these questions are analysed using a trio of qualitative research methods, policy analysis, participant observation and semi-structured interviews, in order to highlight the danger of relying on policy frame analysis alone. This mixed method approach is also used to map the effects of a policy at regional and at local level in order to best address the primary question about what impact was had on the local level for migrant integration as a result of Coalition and Conservative government Localism policies. The policy analysis undertaken uses a modified version of Emilsson’s (2015) power lens approach mapping the impacts of normative, legislative and economic power levers in order to assess the cumulative effects of a policy rather than relying on policy frame alone.

The findings demonstrate that rather than providing enabling conditions for migrant integration, Coalition and Conservative Localism reduced the activities local authorities could undertake to their core statutory duties, of which migrant integration is not one. Furthermore, this research also highlighted how, once all policies impacting on migrant integration are taken into account, (such as immigration, housing or employment), these governments made it significantly harder for local authorities to facilitate migrant integration. In particular, the role of the hostile environment and the increasing neo-liberalisation of government policies are seen to have negatively impacted upon every aspect of the integration process.

The research also saw that running parallel to these detrimental policies was the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VRPS). This scheme was voluntary for local authorities to opt into but fully funded and coordinated by central government. Contrary to the scaling back of all non-statutory services which Localism and its accompanying austerity had necessitated, the VPRS led to an expansion in services for migrants including cohorts which were not refugees. The scheme also meant that local authority officers working on the VPRS were forced to navigate the hostile policies migrants face when accessing accommodation, bank accounts, registering with GPs, obtaining driving licences and other such aspects.

This research shows that there are many types of Localism and that it is essential to examine the policy levers accompanying them in order to assess the impact there may be on migrant integration. It also demonstrates that a whole policy approach must be taken when considering migrant integration and that as such, it is dangerous to designate integration as a purely ‘local issue’.