|
Working group 3
Demographic Changes and Social
Cohesion: a Review of some Recent Publications in French
André-Clément Decouflé
Direction de la Population et des Migrations, Ministère de
l’Aménagement du Territoire, de la Ville et de
l’Intégration, France
List of concrete research proposals on "Demographic
Changes and Social Cohesion": these proposals have been
made to ensure that participants in the Metropolis Project share
a better mutual understanding of the knowledge and action
involved in its implementation.
1. The first proposal is to
clarify the meaning of the concepts and words used by each
country.
concepts underlying
immigration policies; for example, integration,
assimilation (France), pluri or multiculturalism (Canada,
Netherlands, etc.), absorption (Israel), etc.
terms and expressions
defining the status of non-nationals: foreigners,
immigrants, minorities, ethnic groups, communities,
visitors/guests (see the French concept of
"visitor"), refugees, undocumented persons,
etc.
spatial categories of
urban policies: urban agglomerations, urban areas,
downtowns, neighbourhoods, suburban areas, etc.
2. The second proposal is to draw
up a list of studies on the appropriation and use of urban and
peri-urban spaces by high concentrations of immigrant
populations. The literature reviews, prepared for the conference,
have already gone a long way toward assisting in this process,
but an exercise designed specifically for this purpose would no
doubt prove useful.
3. The third proposal is to
conduct a typological and sociological analysis of those involved
in urban policy-making. In France, for example, the mayors of
major cities over the past 30 years have added entrepreneurship
to their traditional functions; at the same time, the
occupational category of urban planner-- common still in the
1960s and 70s (those who were neither architects, engineers nor
administrators but who established themselves as urban planning
"professionals")--has largely disappeared. What is the
situation in the other countries participating in the project?
Demographic Changes and Social
Cohesion
The impact of demographic changes
in cities, on their social cohesion, is a subject of substantial
scholarly concern and analysis, and will continue to be for the
foreseeable future. The most spectacular of the changes seems to
be the rate of demographic growth during the last half-century.
This makes it easy to indulge in catastrophic population
projections at the risk of concealing more profound changes. The
fanciful character exhibited by some of these projections over
the last twenty years, however, should remind us to take a
cautious approach. A specialist in mega-cities recently pointed
out that from one projection to another, the Mexico City
agglomeration had "lost" 58% of its estimated
population, dropping from 31 million (1976 projection) to 18
million (1990 projection for the 2000 horizon: F.
MORICONI-EBRARD, 1996). However, a recent report by the United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA, 1996), pointed out that while in
1950 the planet already counted 83 cities with over a million
inhabitants - 34 of which were in the less developed countries -
that figure is today 280 and could double in the next twenty
years. The developing countries currently count 11 of the 15 most
populated cities in the world; 14 of those 15 cities (or urban
agglomerations) have over 10 million inhabitants. It is predicted
that in the year 2015, 7 cities will each have over 20 million
inhabitants, and 13 of the 15 largest urban agglomerations in the
world will be located in the developing countries (the fifteenth
on the list, Manilla, in the Philippines, will itself count
nearly 15 million inhabitants). Available projections suggest -
and this is a valuable indicator that the "Metropolis"
project should consider - that at the same time (2015) only four
"mega-cities" will be located in North America (New
York and Los Angeles) and Europe (Paris and, in part, Istanbul).
The largest city in the world will continue to be Tokyo. The
UNFPA report takes a very cautious approach. While it refers to
the prevailing influence of natural population growth, it points
out that "[a] broad range of questions about the
contribution of migration to urban growth, the dynamics of
migration and prospects for the future remain unanswered because
of the difficulties of research and the inadequacy of existing
data." It adds that "conceptual problems and
measurement difficulties obscure conclusions on many fundamental
issues" (UNFPA, 1996, p. 39; see also the synthesis by K.
NEYMARC, 1996). These cautions must be borne in mind by readers
of this memorandum. Its purpose is to review the available
literature - in French - on the relationship between
"demographic changes and social cohesion" as they may
relate directly to the Metropolis Project (hereinafter referred
to as "M.P.").
The meaning of the concepts used -
"demographic changes" and "social cohesion" -
must first be defined. The meaning of "demographic
changes" sums up the demographic variables illustrating:
- first, the generalisation of the
"demographic transition", that is, the change from a
demographic regime characterised by high mortality and birth
rates to a regime characterised by low mortality and birth rates.
It appears that this transition is particularly noticeable in
urban areas, even in poor countries. For immigrant populations,
it is expressed in clearly discernible ways, such as the trend
for fertility rates among immigrant women to line up with those
of women in the host community (for France, M. TRIBALAT, 1991 and
G. DESPLANQUES and M. ISNARD, 1993). Another illustration of the
effect of the "demographic transition" is the ageing of
immigrant populations, with regard to how long ago they settled
in the host cities;
- second, the growth - both
natural and through migration (internal and from foreign
countries) - of urban and peri-urban populations. When this
growth is not properly regulated, it leads to poverty,
marginalisation and exclusion, "ghettoisation",
violence, etc., all of which are threats to "social
cohesion."
The meaning of "social
cohesion" is the sum of the results expected of an effective
system for resolving the conflicts that could affect neighbourly
relations among inhabitants of a single urban area. The
hypothesis used is that a majority of these inhabitants are
motivated by the same desire to "live together." They
are prepared to adjust their attitudes and behaviours so that
this desire can be carried out in return for the individual and
collective benefits that it may produce. As with any population
policy issue, the changes that occur in such a project implicitly
raise the problem of an "optimum" level of settlement
and growth in a territory (in this case, in a city or urban
region). This question is not treated in the recent literature,
and so it will not be considered here. Nevertheless, this
question does have a practical impact, that can be expressed in
terms of demographic scales of social cohesion. What is not
certain is whether the problems associated with social cohesion
are the same whether they arise in mega-cities (or large-scale
urban systems, as are seen in the United States and Japan), large
cities, smaller-scale agglomerations or even relatively
unurbanised areas. The effect of migration phenomena is not
limited to metropolises. We are well aware that we are touching
here to formidable threshold problems, to which the current
scientific literature provides few satisfactory answers. However,
this is a field in which the skills of the expert and the
experience of the policy-maker must come together to formulate
and implement practical solutions to questions that undoubtedly
cannot be formulated in a purely objective manner. What we have
are only individual cases that are both communicable (from one
municipality to another) and non-transposable. This vision of
social cohesion, expressed in voluntarist terms is not the
dominant one. Commonly, social cohesion problems are discussed in
terms of "threats" to the existing urban order, or even
to the model of society that it is supposed to embody (D.I.V.,
1995). In that case, the terms used are "social
fracture", segregation, erosion of the welfare-state
project, and so on. When referring to these threats, the problems
of emigration to the cities are high on the list. However, most
authors often avoid taking sides between two different views of
the immigrant (and also of whether he or she is a native of the
country where the city is located). They also avoid taking sides
between the two possible conceptions of the immigrant’s
integration into the urban community and, if the immigrant is a
foreigner, into the host country. From one point of view, we
might decide to emphasise (even implicitly) the "good"
immigrant, the one whose origin and socio-vocational
characteristics are such that they foretell "good"
integration into the host city. We might, however, decide to
emphasise the "average" immigrant, a member of an
already numerous ethnic minority, with few or no skills, for whom
it is difficult to "integrate" into an economy
experiencing a new type of growth (A. TARRIUS, 1992; S.
BODY-GENDROT, 1996). From a second point of view, it is difficult
to avoid choosing between two models for the integration of
newcomers: the relatively assimilationist model (broadly
speaking, the French type) and the model that is more open to
multiculturalism (broadly speaking, the Anglo-Saxon or Dutch
type). It is clear that the choice of indicators of integration
and the weight assigned to one type of demographic variable
rather than another are a function of the model adopted (A.
LEBON, 1994). To begin, we must be able to count the inhabitants
of the cities correctly. Because this is often difficult, the
influence of demographic factors on social cohesion in large
cities is often underestimated (H. Van AMERSFOORT, 1987, for the
case of Amsterdam at the end of the 1980s).
Counting urban populations:
Difficult comparisons
Counting urban inhabitants
requires agreeing on a clear definition of what a city is and
what an urbanised area is and then finding ways of identifying
the flows of people entering and leaving the area being
considered separate from the natural growth of the urban
population. Even if we do not account for specific problems
associated with underground immigration, which is particularly
significant in urban areas, we will encounter specific conceptual
and quantitative difficulties. Each country has its own
definition of a city and, more generally, of the urban
phenomenon. Thus, to take two extreme examples: "Belgium no
longer distinguishes between rural and urban, because the entire
population of the country is considered as urban" (N. CATTAN
and C. ROZENBLAT, 1991, p. 980). Other countries do not
distinguish between what UN terminology designates as a
"city", properly so-called, and an "urban
agglomeration" (true of Brazil, but also of Germany and the
United Kingdom). France uses, in addition to this distinction,
the concept of "industrial and urban population zone",
that leads to a differentiation between rural communes
"outside urban influence", areas "under urban
influence" and "metropolised" areas. Conversely,
countries that have population registers (Belgium, the
Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries) are much better equipped
to monitor changes in core urban populations than are those, like
France, that can rely only upon periodic censuses conducted on a
self-reporting basis. In these circumstances, comparisons between
one country and another are very difficult to make, despite a
growing trend in Europe toward adopting frames of reference based
on North-American categories (standard metropolitan statistical
area, SMSA; daily urban system, DUS. N. CATTAN and C. ROZENBLAT, supra).
The Metropolis Project might be interested in this question, that
itself raises a theoretical problem: the question of the limits
of a comparative process that can legitimise itself only by
masking or denying the methodological obstacles that are
preliminary to its own formulation. In this case, we may end up
in a situation where "comparativism, when turned in on
itself, becomes insane and self-sustaining" (J. DONZELOT,
1995, vol. I, p. 4), with no hope of providing a useful reference
point for carrying out city policies. Furthermore, from this
perspective, what demographic data are most useful?
The demographic data that are
essential to defining and implementing a city policy
The classical view of the issues
involved in analysing urban areas, which is based on the concepts
of spaces, populations, functions, history and image of the city,
has been substantially reframed in recent years, particularly in
France. More attention is being paid to the meanings of two key
concepts: space and population. First, a better understanding has
been gained of the fact that growing numbers of urban spaces are
obeying a logic of collective appropriation on the part of their
inhabitants. These were turning the spaces into genuine
territories, which one might go so far to characterise as the
creation of "off-law" areas in the most decayed urban
spaces, that is, areas where the traditional approaches to urban
management do not work (see, for example, J. BAROU, 1994).
Second, a better measurement has been taken of the specific
social cleavages that characterise a number of urban populations.
In addition to the classical distinctions between income levels
and shelter occupation status (owner, tenant, temporary or
irregular occupation), cleavages have appeared that we might be
tempted to call "primary" (in the sense of primordial)
between sexes, age groups and ethnic origins whence the
appearance, even among researchers who rebelled the most against
this sort of view of the issues, of community-type categories of
analysis, which are particularly adaptable to the study of
immigrant or immigrant-origin populations (on the question of
these two developments in the view of the issues, see the
bibliographic review by R. de VILLANOVA and R. BEKKAR, 1994).
This new generation (at least in France) of urban studies places
greater emphasis on social and economic demography data
applicable to a specific space (the city or urban agglomeration):
- data relating to settlement,
properly speaking: localisation (M. GUILLON, 1990), density (by
neighbourhood and type of shelter in the same neighbourhood), mix
(by origin of inhabitants, nationality, length of presence in the
neighbourhood, income level, etc.) and mobility (C. BONVALET,
1994);
- data relating to distribution by
age, sex and type of family structure: the variables
"ageing" and "single-parent family" are
undoubtedly of particular relevance here (L. BOUVIER, 1990);
- data relating to the spatial
distribution of activities (including businesses and public
services), unemployment and under-employment;
- data relating to the demography
of "social fracture": violence, crime, parallel or
underground economy (including drug economy), etc. (J.M. ERBES,
1995).
If they are to be made operational
for designing and carrying out a city policy, these data must, as
much as possible and in a standard manner, be mapped. While we
may not always be able to expect the exemplary quality of the
work available in respect of an agglomeration such as the
Montreal Urban Community (MAIICC, 1995; A. GERMAIN et al.,
1995), this kind of exercise is the rule today. A recent
committee of experts brought together by the OECD to discuss the
integration of immigrants in urban agglomerations analysed nine
comparative maps (Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf,
London, Manchester, Stockholm, Toronto); for France, it may be
noted that the MIGRINTER group (CNRS and University of Poitiers)
has included in its research program for the period ahead as
complete a review as possible of recent mapping studies (see, for
example, IAURIF, 1992). We may hope that the Metropolis Project
will include in its own action program the creation of a system
for sharing techniques and methodologies in order to develop
these sources of information on the metropolises associated with
the project - the comparativist concern has a practical meaning
here. Once again, the production of reliable statistical data has
no meaning for city policy-makers if it is not spatialised (that
is, in concrete terms, mapped) and, in addition, supported by
appropriate iconography. This is the image of the city that must
set about looking into its transformation and, among other
things, into its decay and destruction. We are well aware that
this is no longer demography, but rather, more broadly, the issue
of "social cohesion."
Social cohesion: Concepts in
crisis, inadequate indicators
As already stated, social cohesion
is most commonly referred to by using metaphors (not concepts)
that suggest its opposite. For instance, without precisely
defining what it means, we talk about "tearing" the
"social fabric", "social fracture",
"breakdown of social ties", etc. There is at least one
concept, more precise and even more radical in meaning, that has
recently appeared in the French-language literature:
"disaffiliation" (R. CASTEL, 1995). This concept refers
to the transformation of relations between the individual and the
elementary, primary community to which he or she is supposed to
belong. Disaffiliation refers to the process of progressively
generalised (or, if preferred, potentially generalisable, unless
appropriate public policies are able to remedy it) loss of the
very meaning of belonging to a group brought together by a
positive project (such as learning a trade, seeking work, being
of service to the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, but also
contributing to a better quality of family life, etc.).
"Disaffiliation" is an
elementary category of "social de-cohesion"; a
"breakdown of ties to the primary integration
networks", and first, of the family: "initially,
dropping out of the regulations imposed by virtue of membership
in the family, lineage, the system of interdependencies based on
membership in the community. Disaffiliation is a risk when all of
an individual’s close relationships based on territorial
identification, which also means family and social
identification, are inadequate to reproduce the individual’s
existence and protect him or her" (R. CASTEL, 1995, p. 36).
The concept of disaffiliation is also used as a reminder that any
examination of "social cohesion", at a level like the
city, must not forget that the "breakdown of social
ties" may first be perceived at the level of the elementary
unit of socialisation, such as the family (without even referring
to the unit that the school is supposed to embody). It can also
be perceived at a much fuzzier level in statements by the
"disaffiliated", the level of society as a whole. This
is how we must understand the meaning of a spontaneous
sociological image to describe the "suburban sickness"
that has recently, in France, been substituted for the classical
category of violence: "hate." "Hate" has no
particular social purpose. It has no justification apart from
itself. Sociologists are in the process of trying to apply this
concept to "problem-bearing neighbourhoods" in the
suburbs of large urban agglomerations in France today (J.
DONZELOT, seminar: "Disadvantaged urban areas: diagnosis,
policies to deal with them and the question of social justice in
Europe and North America", Plan Urbain, 1995, unpublished).
If the usefulness of this type of concept can be proved in field
analysis, then it is a noteworthy part of the statement of the
issues involved in "social cohesion" that may have to
be revisited and corrected. Some over-broad categories of
analysis have failed in the past to reflect reality. For
instance, at least in the case of France, it has been shown that
the "ghetto" category was not useful. It was, at best,
an awkward image and in reality a "sort of vaguely
sociological and secondarily geographic catch-all" (H.
VIEILLARD-BARON, 1992, p. 6) of which we might ask whether it
"leads us astray, in understanding the urban peripheries, in
thinking we can control violent movements or in justifying our
failure to control them." Generally, the "ethnic
territories" that have been identified in French cities (and
their suburbs) are not in fact, with few exceptions, ethnic
"enclaves." "On the contrary, they appear to
correspond to, accompany and anticipate changes in the
organization of cities and in urban lifestyles; [they act as]
indicators of the recomposition of cities and new systems of
territorialisation of city-dwellers"(A. BATTEGUAY, 1992, p.
97). This provides an illustration of the well-known reluctance
of French sociology to accept the category of
"ethnicity" into common use. Contrary to received
wisdom, the concepts of ethnic minority and community strategy
are well represented and have been since the 1970s, in the
statement of the issues in analysis of immigrant populations in
France and of their coexistence with French nationals (I.
TABOADA-LEONETTI, 1989). They probably still need to be fleshed
out by taking into account the religious dimension of a number of
phenomena relating to the "territorialization" of urban
and peri-urban spaces (A. BASTENIER and F. DASSETTO, 1993; J.
BAROU, 1994). Though we certainty lack in our concepts, do we at
least have reliable indicators of what demonstrable social
cohesion would consist of? To date, the exercise has been
attempted only in respect to the integration of immigrants into
the host society (Haut Conseil à l’Intégration, 1993) - as
if "social cohesion" went without saying for nationals.
It has been extended to a comparison between France and Canada in
the context of a seminar on indicators of the integration of
migrants (MAIICC, 1994). The categories used are classic:
integration into the labour market, vocational skills, income
level, shelter and housing, consumption model, knowledge and use
of the language of the host country, children’s academic
careers, participation in civic and cultural life, type and
degree of adhesion to values of the host society, etc. Apart from
these stimulating exercises, it is still true that "the very
concept of integration raises enormous problems of definition and
measurement. First, it is very difficult to define a standard of
"successful" integration that can be used to measure
the degree of integration, and second, what to some people
constitutes an indicator of integration is considered by others
to be the opposite. This is true particularly of residential
concentration and the ethnic sub-economy ..." (V.PICHE and
L. BELANGER, 1995, p. 42). Indicators of integration, and more
broadly of social cohesion, are in many ways a "world of
silence" (J. COSTA-LASCOUX, in MAIICC, 1994).
Concern for "social
cohesion" and "urban policy" in France: the new
issues of urban "citizenship"
Unlike other countries where urban
policy is entirely controlled by managers employed directly by
municipalities or urban communities, France, has little by
little, over the past three decades, constructed a city policy
that involves local authorities in initiatives designed and
funded by the central government. Since 1988, an
"interdepartmental delegation on cities and urban social
development" (DIV) has had responsibility for coordinating
the activities of the central authorities (government departments
and specialised agencies) that are carried out in partnership
with local authorities (mayors and technical services). In fact,
the expression "urban policy" today means "a set
of procedures and measures concerning geographic sites selected
on the basis of clearly targeted socio-economic criteria
(percentage of social shelter, social and educational facilities,
unemployment rate, school failure rate, ratio of foreign
population, distribution of deviant, etc.) and designed to
reintegrate these marginalized neighbourhoods into an integrated
urban life" (L. DOUVIN, 1996, p. 89). The concern for
"social cohesion" lies right at the heart of this
policy. In France today, it supports a debate taking place around
the classical statement of the issues in immigrant integration:
the debate as to the ways and means of defining and implementing
a sort of "new citizenship" within urban areas that are
difficult to administer; a true example of a policy of wishful
thinking, if the "viability" of the policy is not
demonstrable by achievements in the field. A recent study (A.
MADEC and N. MURARD, 1995) tries to define the relationship
between citizenship, in the classical sense of the term (legal
status that makes a person a member of a political community, and
as such grants that person rights and obligations equal to those
of others), civic-mindedness (all of the relationships between
individuals and institutions, in the sense of relations that
build a common life, a political city) and civility (the domain
of neighbourly relations among individuals). The main point of
this study is that it is actually the basic "social
tie", the tie that creates elementary communication among
individuals, that must first be rebuilt. The avenues for this
rebuilding probably involve the practice of "action
citizenship", that is based on the recognition of the
legitimacy of appropriating a territory and does not rule out
violence as a possible form of expression (in the sense of
"acting out"). This violence may reveal new (or
reframed) forms of sharing in a collective project and not only
"a new form of civic-mindedness, but also a new form of
civility" and of citizenship. "In an increasingly
hostile world, in which living conditions are getting more and
more extreme (inadequate sanitation, noise, poor services,
dilapidation of collective facilities, stigmatization of the
neighbourhood, growing unemployment versus a flourishing parallel
economy, etc.), citizenship then becomes a function of
affectivity, through the family, friends and support networks,
and leads us to picture cities in other than negative terms, for
example by emphasizing collective life and personal ties. This
form of civility, building an ethos involving a shift away from
the classical ethos, makes it possible to partially counteract
the effects of the "dis-ease", which are obstacles to
participation and civic-mindedness." As may be seen,
"disaffiliation" is not something to which everyone is
doomed. Another recent study (F. MEGEVAND and J.A. PEREZ, 1995)
confirms this, on the basis of the observation of the social
practices of the inhabitants of three neighbourhoods in a large
urban agglomeration (Grenoble). The first observation is that
there has been a renaissance in associative life that has also
been encouraged by public policies organised under the heading of
"urban social development" (DSU). From this
perspective, there can be no doubt as to the successes achieved
through long-term efforts to get the inhabitants of
"problem-bearing neighbourhoods" to take over some part
of the management of their own problems. A new division of
responsibilities among associations, municipalities and municipal
technical services is being sought, and no form of action would
be ruled out. The rule is pragmatism, and the ideological
references that were fashionable some years back have disappeared
(on the other hand, the study is silent as to possible religious
references). The conclusion of a study such as this one is
encouraging. Regardless of how serious the problems that a
population has to deal with, there is no such thing as a
"hopeless" population, as long as the people feel that
they are being recognised and respected.
Bibliography
AMERSFOORT Hans Van (1987), Résidence
et groupes ethniques dans les villes néerlandaises: classe,
race ou culture?, [residence and ethnic groups in cities
in the Netherlands: class, race or culture?], Revue
Européene des migrations internationales, vol. 3, pp. 91-115
BAROU Jacques (1994), Processus de ségrégation et
ethnicisation de l’espace, [process of segregation
and ethnicization of space], Direction de la Population et
des Migrations [population and migration branch] research
report, unpublished
BASTENIER Albert and DASSETTO Felice (1993), Immigration
et espace public: la controverse de l’intégration, [immigration
and public space: the integration debate], L’Harmattan,
Paris
BATTEGUAY Alain (1992), L’actualité de
l’immigration dans les villes françaises: la question
des territoires ethniques, [current immigration issues in
French cities: the question of ethnic territories], Revue
Européene des migrations internationales, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.
83-100
BAUDRILLART Jean (1995), Le crime parfait, [the
perfect crime], Galilée, Paris
BODY-GENDROT Sophie (1993), Ville et violence:
l’irruption de nouveaux acteurs, [city and violence:
the emergence of new actors], PUF, "Recherches
politiques", Paris
BODY-GENDROT Sophie (1995), Le développement urbain et
les migrations: expériences américains, [urban
development and migration: American experiences], OECD,
working group on migration, discussion paper, June 1995,
unpublished
BONVALET Catherine (under the direction of) (1994), Logement,
mobilité et population urbaines, [urban housing,
mobility and population], CNRS Éditions, Paris
BOUVIER Léon (1990), Immigration, changement
démographique et la mosaïque américaine, [immigration,
demographic change and the American mosaic], Revue Européene
des migrations internationales, vol. 6, no. 1, 1990, pp.
45-57
CASTEL Robert (1995), Les métamorphoses de la question
sociale: une chronologie du salariat, [metamorphoses of
the social question: a chronology of wage earners], Fayard,
Paris
CATTAN Nadine and ROZENBLAT Céline (1991), Délimiter et
mesurer l’évolution des populatins urbaines, [defining
and measuring changes in urban populations], Population,
July-August 1991, pp. 979-991
DESPLANQUES Guy and ISNARD Michel (1993), La fécondité
des étrangères en France diminue, [fertility among
foreign women in France is declining], Données sociales,
INSEE, Paris, 598 p., pp. 46-53
DIV (Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville)
[interdepartmental delegation on cities] (1995), Proceedings
of the European seminar "Territoires urbains et
cohésion sociale en Europe: quelle action publique?",
[urban territories and social cohesion in Europe: what pubic
action?"], Paris, May 1995 (unpublished)
DONZELOT Jacques (1995), Les "zones urbaines
dévalorisées", leures diagnostics, les politiques en
leur direction et la question de la justice sociale en Europe
et en Amérique du Nord, ["devalued [?] urban
areas": diagnosis, policies to deal with them and the
question of social justice in Europe and North America],
International seminar of Plan Urbain and NATO, Paris
(unpublished)
DOUVIN Laurence (1996), Urbanisation et citoyenneté dans
les grandes agglomérations, [urbanization and
citizenship in large agglomerations], Conseil économique et
social [economic and social council] (avis et rapports
[opinions and reports], no. 17), Paris
ERBES Jean-Marc (1995), Problèmes démographiques et
équilibres urbains: données générales de criminalité
urbaine [demographic problems and urban equilibriums:
general urban crime data] in La Ville, peur et espérances
[cities: fear and hope] (coll. vol.), La documentation
française, Paris, 245 p., pp. 32-38
UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND (UNFPA) (1996), The State
of World Population 1996. Changing places: population,
development and the urban future, UNFPA, New York
GERMAIN Annick (under the direction of) (1995), Cohabitation
inter-ethnique et vie de quartier, [inter-ethnic
cohabitation and neighbourhood life], Direction des études
et de la recherche, Ministère des affaires internationales,
de l’immigration et des communautés culturelles
[studies and research branch, department of international
affairs, immigration and cultural communities], studies and
research collection, no. 12 (Montreal)
GUILLON Michelle (1990), Français et étangers en
Ile-de-France: dynamiques de localisation divergentes
[French and foreigners in the Ile-de-France: divergent
localization dynamics] in Stratégies résidentielles
[residential strategies] (collective work) INED, Plan,
construction et architecture [plan, construction and
architecture], MELTM, Paris, 459 p., pp. 419-439
GUILMOTO A. (1990), Les immigrés dans le tissu urbain:
Berlin, Londres, Paris, [immigrants in the urban fabric:
Berlin, London, Paris], Plan Urbain, Paris
HAUT CONSEIL A L’INTEGRATION [high council on
integration] (1993), L’intégration à la française,
[integration, French style], UGE, coll. 10/18, Paris
IAURIF [Institut d’aménagement et d’urbanisation
de la région Ile-de-France) [Ile-de-France region planning
and urbanization institute) (1992), Atlas des franciliens
[atlas of inhabitants of the Ile-de-France] (2 vols.), IAURIF
and INSEE, Paris
LEBON André (1994), Les indicateurs d’intégration:
où en est la France?, [integration indicators: where
does France stand?], Proceedings of the Séminaire sur les
indicateurs d’intégration des immigrants [seminar on
immigrant integration indicators], Montreal, Ministère des
affaires internationales, de l’immigration et des
communautés culturelles, Centre d’études Ethniques
[centre for ethnic studies], Université de Montréal, 1994,
pp. 21-38
LECLERCQ Robert-Jean (1985), Génération des cités:
conditions de vie et revendications collectives, [generation
of cities: living conditions and collective demands], Revue
Européenne des migrations internationales, vol. 1, no. 2,
December 1995, pp. 161-168
MADEC Annick and MURARD Numa (under the direction of) (1995),
Citoyenneté et politiques sociales, [citizenship and
social policy], Flammarion, "Dominos", Paris
MAIICC (dept. of international affairs, immigration and
cultural communities), Montreal (1994), Actes du
Séminaire sur les indicateurs d’intégration des
immigrants, [proceedings of the seminar on immigrant
integration indicators]
MAIICC (dept. of international affairs, immigration and
cultural communities), Montreal (1995), Localisation des
populations immigrées et ethno-culturelles dans la région
métropolitaine de recensement de Montréal, [localization
of immigrant and ethno-cultural populations in the Montreal
metropolitan census area], Coll. Statistiques et indicateurs
[statistics and indicators], no. 12
MEGEVAND Francie and PEREZ Jaime (1995), Nouvelles
dynamiques habitantes et enjeux de citoyenneté: Étude de
trois quartiers contrastés de l’agglomération
grenebloise, [new dynamic inhabitants and citizenship
issues: study of three contrasting neighbourhoods in the
Grenoble agglomeration], CIVIL-CERAT and Plan Urbain,
Grenoble and Paris
MORICONI-EBRARD François (1996), Explosion urbaine, le
sens de la démesure, [urban explosion: a sense of
disproportion], Le monde diplomatique, Paris, July 1996
NEYMARC Kristen (1996), Les immigrés, les villes et
l’intégration: brève revue de la littérature
récente, [immigrants, cities and integration: brief
review of the recent literature], OECD, working group on
migration. Memorandum from the secretariat, June 1996
PICHE Victor and BELANGER Liane (1995), Une revue des
études québécoises sur des facteurs d’intégration
des immigrants, [a review of Quebec studies on factors in
immigrant integration], Direction des études et de la
recherche, Ministère des affaires internationales, de
l’immigration et des communautés culturelles,
"Notes et documents" no. 15, Montreal
SIMON-BAROUH Ida and SIMON Pierre-Jean (1990), Les
étrangers dans les villes: le regard des sciences sociales, [foreigners
in the cities: the social sciences perspective],
L’Harmattan, Paris
SOPEMI - Continuous Reporting System on Migration, Trends
in international migration. Annual Report 1994, OECD,
Paris
TABOADA-LEONETTI Isabelle (1989), Cohabitation
pluri-ethnique dans la ville: stratégies d’insertion
locale et phénomènes identitaires, [multi-ethnic
cohabitation in the city: local integration strategies and
identity phenomena], Revue Européene des migrations
internationales, vol. 5, no. 2, 1989, pp. 51-69
TARRIUS A. (1992), Les fourmis d’Europe: migrants
riches, migrants pauvres et nouvelles villes internationales,
[the ants of Europe: rich migrants, poor migrants and new
international cities], L’Harmattan, Paris
TODD Emmanuel (1994), Les destin des immigrés.
Assimilation et ségrégation dans les démocraties
occidentales, [the immigrant’s fate. Assimilation
and segregation in the western democracies], Ed. du Seuil,
"L’histoire immédiate" ["recent
history"], Paris
TRIBALAT Michèle (under the direction of) (1991), Cent
ans d’immigration, étrangers d’hier Français
d’aujourd’hui Apport démographique, dynamique
familiale et économique de l’immigration étrangère, [one
hundred years of immigration, yesterday foreigners, today
French. Demographic contribution, family and economic
dynamics of foreign immigration], INED, Travaux et documents
[research and documents], vol. no. 131, PUF, Paris
VIEILLARD-BARON Hervé (1992), Le risque du
"ghetto" dans l’agglomération parisienne, [the
risk of the "ghetto" in the Paris agglomeration],
Acta geographica, no. 89, 1992/1, pp. 3-30
VILLANOVA R. and BEKKAR R. (1994), Immigration et espaces
habités. Bilan bibliographic des travaux en France,
1970-1992, [immigration and inhabited spaces.
Bibliographic summary of research in France, 1970-1992],
L’Harmattan, Paris
Back to
index
Previous Section
Next Section
|
