Using MIPEX for research: Measuring Migrant Integration through MIPEX III

2. Using MIPEX for research: Measuring Migrant Integration through MIPEX III Runnymede Trust academic forum, April 2012 Ben Gidley, Senior Researcher, COMPAS (ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society), University of Oxford

3. Outline of presentation • Integration, integration policy and measurement • What is MIPEX? • Using MIPEX for research: a. Tracking change over time b. Developing typologies and comparisons c. Research on correlations between different migration factors

4. 1. Integration, integration policy and measurement • What is integration? • How can it be measured? • Law and policy as a foundation for integration

5. Defining integration – the EU Common Basic Principles 2004 • Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States. Integration is a dynamic, long-term, and continuous two-way process of mutual accommodation, not a static outcome. It demands the participation not only of immigrants and their descendants but of every resident. The integration process involves adaptation by immigrants, both men and women, who all have rights and responsibilities in relation to their new country of residence. It also involves the receiving society, which should create the opportunities for the immigrants’ full economic, social, cultural, and political participation.

6. Defining integration – the UK Roy Jenkins 1964: “not a flattening process of assimilation but... equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance” CIC 2006: “cohesion is principally the process that must happen in all communities to ensure different groups of people get on well together; while integration is principally the process that ensures new residents and existing residents adapt to one another”

7. David Cameron 2011: A natural process that unfolds over time at a local level: “Real communities are bound by common experiences… forged by friendship and conversation… knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time. That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods… perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there… on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate … that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.”

8. Creating the Conditions for Integration 2012:

9. Measuring Integration: the UK From Ager, A. and Strang, A.(2004) Indicators of Integration: Final Report, Home Office Development and Practice Report p.27

10. 2. What is MIPEX?

11. 33 countries (EU27, plus other Europe, USA, Canada, Japan) • 148 indicators. Data transparency. • Peer review and national partners. Runnymede = UK partner • Interactive tool on website http://www.mipex.eu/

12. Seven domains: • family reunion • access to nationality • long-term residence • political participation • anti-discrimination • labour market mobility • education

13. Europe 2010

14. UK – ranked no.14 with a score of 57

15. Anti-discrimination scores for UK

16. 3. Using MIPEX for research a. Tracking change over time b. Developing typologies and comparisons c. Research on correlations between different migration factors

17. a. Tracking (and understanding) change over time • Some possible examples: correlating with attitudinal surveys (e.g. Transatlantic Trends), identifying policy impacts of political events; identifying trends

18. b. Developing typologies and comparisons i. Testing and improving academic ideal types and taxonomies, e.g. “the Mediterranean migration model”, “civic versus ethnic nationalism” – see e.g. Ruudmans on welfare/integration models

19. ii. Developing frameworks for comparative research – building international dimensions, identifying collaborators, framing funding applications – qualifying generalisations, specifying the scope of a claim

20. c. Research on correlations between different migration factors • Correlating MIPEX with other measures. Examples: • Cummins and Rodríguez “Is There a Numbers versus Rights Trade-off in Immigration Policy? What the Data Say” Human Development Research Paper 2009/21 – concludes no correlation between size and policy

21. Reekins “Ethnic-Cultural Diversity, Migrant Integration Policies and Social Cohesion in Europe” 2010 – concludes that trust is higher in countries with open policies, but open regimes are unable to mitigate the negative effect of diversity on trust • Ruudmans “Tradeoffs between Equality and Difference” 2008 – concludes there is a trade-off between equitable outcomes and respect for diversity

22. Note: can use the overall score, or specific domains or indicators.

23. ii. Using MIPEX to control for policy differences. Examples: Prokic and Dronkers Civic Education Study on migrant/native background youth attitudes across countries; Rödera and Mühlaub 2010 on determinants of confidence of immigrants in public institutions

24. Conclusions • MIPEX enables comparison across countries and across time, in ways which can be useful for researchers and advocates. But in using it we need to be aware of its limits. It attempts to measure integration policy not integration itself. It rests on basic assumptions about how policies lead to integration outcomes, but does not tell us about outcomes.