MIGRATION AND MAJOR CITIES POLICY IN ROTTERDAM

2. Major Cities Policy in Rotterdam

2.1 Introduction

The immigration process described in the previous chapter took place against a background of changing socio-economic development. Following a period of reconstruction of Rotterdam after the Second World War, the sixties and seventies were characterised by sharp economic growth, the promotion of social equality and the finishing touches were put on the welfare state. From the mid seventies onwards, there was a policy of urban renewal in the major cities. Large-scale investments were made in the old city neighbourhoods, existing homes were renovated and new housing was built in such a way that it remained affordable for those on low(er) incomes. This policy was accompanied by extra efforts in the field of education and welfare.

At the end of the seventies, however, a decline in the national economy set in, visible primarily in negative developments in the big cities of the Netherlands. Social deprivation became concentrated in certain sections of the cities, not only the old urban renewal areas, but also some of the post-war suburbs. These areas were - and still are - characterised by a high percentage of long-term unemployment and a relatively high level of crime (particularly drug-related), in combination with the presence of a large proportion of ethnic minorities, often with large families. The emergence of 'black schools' is an expression of the problems which arose in these neighbourhoods.

Although the Dutch economy has been improving again over the past few years and unemployment in the country is falling, this is much less the case in Rotterdam. The problems of unemployment and the related deprivation seems to have become an exclusive problem of the big cities. The fears of possible ghetto-formation in certain neighbourhoods in the big cities and a resulting split in society have been increasing recently.

The Dutch government and the city councils of the four major cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht (the G4) have set themselves the task of preventing such a spilt, comparable to developments elsewhere in the world. The approach here is based on the socio-economic problems rather than the ethnic dimension. It is a question of preventing and removing social deprivation for the population of the threatened areas of the cities. The fact that it largely involves ex-migrants is a significant one but not decisive for the implementation of the Major Cities Policy (GSB), as executed since 1995. In an agreement signed in that year between the government and the four city councils, these efforts are expressed as follows:

"As elsewhere in Europe, there is evidence in the Netherlands of a process of erosion in the cities which is affecting the vitality of our society as a whole in the social and economic sense. A powerful offensive is therefore needed to link the control of safety and liveability in the cities with improvements to the preconditions for economic growth. It is now time to bring about a change for the better. There must be more commercial activity in the big cities. In addition, we must prevent a dichotomy from emerging along socio-economic, social and ethnic lines in the cities, and in certain areas of the cities in particular".

2.2 Development of the Major Cities Policy

The above passage shows that it involves a two-track policy: policy geared towards combatting deprivation combined with strengthening the economic structure.

This approach is in line with Social Renewal, the long-term policy programme in which the national government and city councils cooperated between 1991 and 1995. This policy programme was based on the following principles:

customization, policy geared towards the specific situation and the needs of the people in the situation;

cooperation, mutual coordination of the efforts of various bodies;

activation, linking up with self-motivation of target groups involved;

prevention, measures to prevent undesirable developments, instead of merely sweeping aside the problems.

The first three principles mentioned were clearly expressed in concrete results during the period of Social Renewal, such as service points for residents and entrepreneurs (customization), neighbourhood management (cooperation) and 'Opzoomeren' (activating residents). The principle of prevention was, however, expressed less clearly.

In June 1994, following the last parliamentary elections, the city councils of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht presented their wishes to the new government. The term 'deprivation' was placed emphatically in a development perspective:

"In the most threatened areas of the cities there is evidence of a downwards spiral, caused by the fact that unemployment, lack of safety, vandalism, high dependence on welfare, deterioration of homes and neglect of the residential environment coincide here to a high degree."

From this development perspective, a clear link was drawn between social and economic policy. Strengthening the economic structure, improving facilities for the local economy and encouraging commercial activity must also, alongside sources of income, create favourable conditions for maintaining safety and liveability. Linking economic and social policy creates added value. For example: educational measures not only improve the chances of children from deprived areas to gain employment, but also the possibilities of employers to recruit suitable personnel. Policy on safety and liveability must make the neighbourhoods more attractive places in which to invest, work and live.

This approach also offers a new synthesis of economic and social thinking, which was not a logical combination in the past few decades: on the one hand, deprivation is no longer seen as a purely social phenomenon that has to be corrected by redistributing social resources (the dominant line of reasoning during the construction of the welfare state); on the other hand, the existence of deprivation phenomena is not brushed aside as purely a consequence of individual failure (the line of reasoning popular in the eighties).

In looking for solutions, new ground was broken. Most of the situations of deprivation in the big cities have an economic cause, namely structural unemployment as a result of a surplus of low-skilled job-seekers in the big cities. The related cumulation of problems has a negative impact on safety and liveability. Social policy is, in itself, inadequate in reversing the downwards spiral. For a solution, a focused economic policy is also required, namely revitalisation of the urban economy.

The four big cities found a willing ear in the new Kok government. In the Coalition Agreement of August 1994, a special paragraph was devoted to the major cities. The term Major Cities Policy (GSB) was introduced, a special secretary of state (an undersecretary), Mr. J. Kohnstamm, was appointed to shape this policy.

Agreements on the creation of integrated policy programmes for the necessary revitalisation of the big cities were set down in an agreement with the cities of Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht (the G4) on 12 July 1995. On 30 October 1995, a similar agreement with 15 other, medium-sized cities (G15) followed.

The agreement with the G4 covers the following policy fields:

* work

* education

* safety

* care

* liveability

For each of these policy fields, target objectives, measures and measurable results to be achieved within four years have been agreed.

In the policy field 'work', examples of intended results include: reduction in long-term unemployment (with the percentage of the working population out of work for longer than a year as criterion) and an increase in medium-sized and small business (with the number of people employed and the number of m2 floor space in use for business activity as criterion). Measures relate to the large-scale stimulation of job-creation in government and the business sector and support for (starting) entrepreneurs.

In the policy field 'education', intended results include both an improvement in the average learning results in primary education and an increase in the returns from secondary education, in addition to an improvement in the coordination between education and the labour market. The agreed measures relate primarily to an expansion of the role of the municipalities as directors in education policy.

In the policy field 'safety', improvements to both objective safety (measured crime) and subjective safety (feeling of safety) are aimed at. These are established on the basis of police registration and questionnaires (police monitor). Measures include: neighbourhood safety plans, appointment of supervisors, combatting juvenile crime and extra capacity for tackling drug nuisance and providing refuge for drug addicts.

The policy field 'care' targets the most vulnerable people in urban society, such as the homeless, ex-psychiatric patients and addicts. The measures relate, for instance, to mental health, assessment and registration systems for social pensions an the prevention of compulsory admission to institutions.

In the policy field 'liveability' it is a question of preventing or combatting things such as nuisance, tension between groups of the population, impoverishment of the residential environment and spatial segregation of the deprived in particular neighbourhoods. Measures include the implementation of integrated programmes for neighbourhood and district management and the construction of more expensive housing in certain neighbourhoods, in addition to cheaper housing in new neighbourhoods in order to counteract spatial segregation.

The Institute for Sociological-Economic Research (ISEO) of the Erasmus University Rotterdam was commissioned to measure the results in the policy fields mentioned in all cities involved in the Major Cities Policy for the coming years and record them for publication in four Major Cities Yearbooks. Up to now, 2 yearbooks have been issued.

2.3 Area-Specific Approach

As a result of the agreement between the government and the city council, a great deal of energy has gone into the so-called Area-Specific Approach in Rotterdam. A feature of the GSB is that renewal of the policy approach is aimed at, in addition to renewal of the policy content for the big cities. The integrated policy programmes between central government and the G4 introduced in the agreement are geared towards breaking through the compartmentalised structure and combining the forces of those bodies involved. Important policy tasks are hereby delegated from central government to the cities:

"By strengthening the director's function of the municipalities, it must be possible to tackle the problems of the big city more effectively. After all, the complexity of the big-city problem can only be reduced by means of an integrated approach at the level and on the scale at which this complexity is rooted. It is also here that the cities must act, and they will be enabled to do so. They will have to utilise the position they are afforded by virtue of this Covenant to tackle the problems at the level of the urban district and neighbourhood".

In Rotterdam, an attempt is being made in five carefully selected areas of the city to break through the negative trend on the spot, through the deployment of funds and manpower in integrated, area-specific policy programmes. The areas are selected because they are characterised, on the one hand, by considerable social deprivation and, on the other, by the potential to set a positive development in motion.

The vision of Rotterdam Municipal City Council on the area-specific approach is based on the following three principles:

* trend-reversing policy

* integration

* support

The principle of the trend-reversing policy is a follow-on from the new thinking on deprivation outlined above. A tend-reversing policy is directed, in the first instance, towards strengthening the economic structure and making optimum use of economic potential in order to break out of the downwards economic spiral.

The second principle, integration, indicates that the promotion of commercial activity and employment must be combined with improving safety, liveability and care. A second meaning of integration relates to the design and implementation of integrated programmes, aimed at breaking through the compartmentalised approach by means of which municipal policy sectors often approach problems. In the Area-Specific Approach, the basic principle of integration is given practical shape in a number of aspects:

* registration by various bodies: data on the policy instruments used and the results of this are made accessible to all bodies involved;

* cooperation between bodies: the effectiveness of the policy programmes increases with good coordination, communication between the bodies involved and joint team-formation for the implementation;

* reflection: concrete and orderly information on the progress of the GSB in the various areas is needed in the event of modifications. On the basis of this information, reflection is called for: the causes must first be sought;

* interaction: integrated policy programmes are made for, for instance, a square or a neighbourhood, urban district or city. At each of these levels, it is possible to exchange experiences between similar programmes elsewhere in the city.

The principle support means that the area-specific approach must have the support of the target groups. A distinction must be made here between:

* popular perception. The effectiveness of the policy cannot only be measured from the 'objective' results, but also depends on how the population perceives it. The policy must therefore be geared towards this perception and be made recognisable for the population. They must be able to assess the results in a positive way. That is why good communication is of vital importance for the policy in general and for the GSB in particular;

* participation of the target groups. The GSB is based on the participation of target groups involved, such as residents and companies. This cooperation takes shape in the form of public-private partnerships and therefore goes a step further than public consultation. The basic principle here is that the approach towards the implementation of the policy is shaped, right from the start, through cooperation between the target groups involved. The participation of target groups in the policy-making and implementation can also be stimulated by the government: activation.

For each of the areas selected in Rotterdam a project group has been set up, in which political administrators, civil servants, residents, the commercial sector, social organisations and landlords work together.

These project groups have worked out integrated policy programmes for the period 1996 to the end of 1999, in which the area-specific approach is given concrete shape. The policy programmes cover all policy areas for which the municipality of Rotterdam has made agreements with central government:

* work and commercial activity

* education and reception of migrants

* safety

* liveability

* care.

For the same period, from 1996 to 1999, a research programme linked with the five policy programmes has been set up, in which the results of the Area-Specific Approach are monitored: the Area-Specific Monitor. This monitor is in line with the Major Cities Yearbooks, referred to earlier, which the ISEO (of the Erasmus University Rotterdam) publishes for all GSB cities, commissioned by the central government. More details of the Area-Specific Monitor can be found in chapter 4.

[Back] [Table of contents] [Forward]