MIGRATION AND MAJOR CITIES POLICY IN ROTTERDAM

5. Future prospects

5.1. Rotterdam 2005

With respect to the policy for the future, Rotterdam city council has set out lines on the basis of a city-wide discussion which took place in the Autumn of 1996: New Rotterdam. Course 2005. This approach is a follow-up to the urban programmes for economic renewal and social renewal which have been on the political agenda for some time and which have been forged into one whole in connection with the Major Cities Policy. New in this connection is the city-wide discussion aimed at finding a popular foundation for giving further direction to the policy. In order to get the discussion with the people of Rotterdam going, various instruments were deployed:

- Via the media, the Rotterdammers received information on the themes which the City Council wished to raise for discussion. They were also requested to respond by answering a questionnaire which was included in a free newspaper and by writing letters.

- Individual Rotterdammers and social organisations were also invited to form work groups to discuss policy for the future. The work groups were asked to summarise their findings in a number of propositions.

- The city-wide discussion was rounded off with a city congress where the results of the questionnaire, the message from the letters and the findings of the work groups were presented. The conclusions of this congress were submitted to the city council.

This approach is in keeping with the principle of co-production of policy. This means that the exchange of ideas on the policy with the target groups involved already begins during the policy-preparation phase, when the direction which the policy is to take is determined, and not at the implementation stage, as is the case with public consultation. This form of administrative innovation was placed in a broader context in the city congress: revitalisation of the urban culture.

In continuing the policy of socio-economic renewal, two target groups will be paid more attention in the future: the entrepreneurs and the ethnic minorities. That is why these target groups will be looked at in more detail below.

5.2 Activating entrepreneurs

A drastic change is taking place in the role played by entrepreneurs in the city. When Rotterdam city council decided, in 1989, to develop a programme of social renewal, the question of whether the business community in Rotterdam was prepared to support it was raised. Professor Schuyt was commissioned to look into this. A team of researchers, under his leadership, conducted the study in 1990. The concept civic responsibility was chosen as basic principle. This concept is in line with an American tradition and refers to a widely-accepted cluster of business activities geared towards alleviating social hardship. A number of representatives of large companies were interviewed to see of they were prepared to bear their social responsibilities. They reacted cautiously and there was little tendency to allocate social responsibility to the business community itself, although they welcomed the city council's endeavour to improve contact with the business community. Serving social needs was considered the exclusive responsibility of the government. Apparently, labour costs and taxes are too high in the Netherlands, combined with fierce international competition, for companies to bear any social responsibility.

Schuyt and his team of researchers suggested that the tendency for companies to become 'footloose' was a possible explanation for the results found. The links with the locality are weakening and companies are therefore less interested in social issues. This can play a role but, generally speaking, the footloose character of a company is related to decisions on capital investments which are taken at the head-office level of multinationals. The involvement of companies with the local community is, on the other hand, expressed in the decisions taken by local managers. The tendency among companies to become increasingly footloose also implies a pessimistic perspective when it comes to the social responsibility of the business community, became the internationalisation of the commercial sector continues to increase. There is, however, another possible explanation which points to a specific political-historical fact, namely that during the past few decades the idea that social development was primarily the responsibility of the government became popular in the Netherlands, whilst entrepreneurs bore purely economic responsibility. The idea of civic responsibility is not in keeping with this. This political-historical fact can, in contrast to the tendency among companies to become footloose, be influenced by the local authorities.

The renewal of the urban culture linked with the combination of economic and social renewal which was set in motion in the first half of the nineties, is not in keeping with the idea that entrepreneurs have purely an economic responsibility. The entrepreneurs are expected, together with local residents and the social midfield, to work actively on the development of the city. Entrepreneurs can even be said to play a crucial role here because economic recovery is an essential precondition for combatting situations of deprivation. In this context, the government is choosing a completely different approach to entrepreneurs than previously. All effort is aimed at public-private partnership which is attractive to the entrepreneur on the basis of a win-win situation. In this connection, one can speak of a transition from a supply-oriented approach to a demand-oriented approach. A feature of the supply-oriented approach is that the government tries to steer the policy with respect to the business community by means of regulation and subsidies. The available facilities are, however, less useful to companies because they are not sufficiently geared towards the needs and due to the complicated regulations which discourage entrepreneurs from looking into the possibilities on offer. The demand-oriented approach, on the other hand, is based on the needs of the business community and makes the facilities as accessible as possible to entrepreneurs. This is the basis for the public-private partnership. An important initiative in this connection is the Entrepreneurs' Palace, a mobile facility by means of which entrepreneurs from small and medium-sized business are visited locally with the aim of arousing their enthusiasm for taking on new staff from deprived neighbourhoods and supporting them with made-to-order service. The project Heart for the City has made an inventory, over a number of years, of inspiring examples of cooperation between enterprises and government or non-profit organisations and publicised them. An expression of social responsibility on the part of entrepreneurs is, for instance, their support for voluntary work via the programme Do something for your city. In order to shape improvements to communication with the entrepreneurs, entrepreneur platforms have been established in the boroughs. These platforms are geared towards solving problems which are experienced as obstacles by firms in the local situation. In this way, support from entrepreneurs is gradually built up, so that they become partners in the further development of the Major Cities Policy.

5.3 Participation of ethnic minorities

Deprivation among ethnic minorities appears to be stubborn problem. Research suggests that deprivation in the filed of education and work among the five major ethnic groups in Rotterdam - the Turks, Moroccans, Surinamers, Antillians and Cape Verdians - continues to exist in the second generation. This conclusion also remains valid after a procedure of 'matching', whereby the differences are checked against a number of factors which cause the ethnic population to deviate from the native population. An explanation on the basis of a tendency towards segregation or reacting against Dutch society does not hold water. From interviews with youngsters from ethnic groups, it appears that they also have a desire to find a place within Dutch society, but that the socio-economic integration is inadequate despite this.

The participation of ethnic minorities in the residential environment (neighbourhood management) is lagging very much behind in Rotterdam, as in the socio-economic sphere. Research into this (Migrants and neighbourhood management in Rotterdam, by C. Bons, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1994) has revealed a participation paradox, i.e.: the ethnic minorities appear to participate less in relative terms but, on the other hand, have more need to participate than the native Dutch. In this study, 339 people were interviewed, divided over four groups - Dutch, Surinamers, Turks and Moroccans - in three areas of Rotterdam - Feijenoord, Nieuwe Westen and Hillegersberg-Schiebroek. The respondents were presented with 14 topics, such as rubbish on the streets, no playgrounds for the children, too little greenery, vandalism and crime. For all of these topics they were asked if they considered it a problem. Then, for those topics which were considered a problem, people were asked how they reacted to this, if they took action themselves and, if not, if they were prepared to cooperate if someone else took the initiative. It appeared that the ethnic minorities are much less inclined to take action than the native population (see scheme 5.1). The respondents were also asked if they were prepared to help keep the neighbourhood clean, whole and safe. The scores for the answers to the relevant questions can be found in scheme 5.2.

Scheme 5.1 Participation in neighbourhood management by various ethnic groups, compared with each other

	Surinam	Turkish	Moroccan	Dutch	total
active	35%	19%	26%	51%	39%
non-active	65%	81%	74%	49%	62%
total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
N	66	67	38	156	327

 

Scheme 5.2 Willingness of various ethnic groups to help, compared with each other

 

	Surinam	Turkish	Moroccan	Dutch	total
willingness to help expressed in score of 0-10	4.2	7.1	5.6	3.0	4.3
N	54	62	30	144	290

 

A paradox becomes visible here: although the ethnic minorities are much less active, they display a much greater willingness to help. On closer analysis, it appears that the contrast between willingness to help and actual activism is linked with a number of other differences which together form a pattern (see table 3). This pattern reveals two contrasting groups. The more active nature of the Dutch population correlates with a higher socio-economic status, less religiousness, less conformity, more political, cultural and social participation and greater knowledge of social renewal and neighbourhood management. The greater willingness to help among the ethnic minorities correlates with a lower socio-economic status, more religiousness and conformity and more participation in one's own circle (family, neighbourhood). People attach more importance to the neighbourhood and have an idea of the neighbourhood which is geared towards the direct vicinity. For the ethnic minorities, it also applies that people are more active the longer they have lived in the Netherlands, are more familiar with the Dutch language, are more prepared to adapt and identify less with their own national group.

Scheme 5.3 Contrast pattern participation in neighbourhood management and willingness to help

 

active:	willingness to help:
more Dutch origin, more living alone, better educated, higher income	more from ethnic minorities,more living together/at home,less well educated, lower income
less religious and conformist	more conformist and religious, more deprivation re income
more political participation, cultural participation, member of clubs, more voluntary work, more active on committees	less participation in clubs, less voluntary work, much less active on committees
	more religious participation, contacts with family/neighbours
negative assessment of liveability
	image of neighbourhood geared towards direct vicinity, more importance attached to neighbourhood
more knowledge of neighbourhood, much more familiar with social renewal and neighbourhood management	less knowledge of neighbourhood
only among ethnic minorities:	only among ethnic minorities:
longer stay, more familiar with the Dutch language, more acclimatised, less identification with own national group	shorter stay

 

A possible explanation for the contrast pattern discovered can be sought in the tendency towards individualisation which is much more advanced among the Dutch population than the ethnic minorities. A more individualistic way of life is in keeping with direct action when there is reason for dissatisfaction, whilst a way of life which is still focused on the collective, is more associated with the tendency to wait for a sign from the powers that be or a group initiative. Indications of a more collectivistic way of life can be found among the ethnic minorities in the form of more religiousness, a higher degree of conformity and more focus on one's own circle. This way of life represents a handicap in society which is highly individualised. It also provides an explanation for the paradox that the ethnic minorities who often indicate a greater willingness to help are less active in practice. The conversion of their willingness into actual participation is hindered by the gulf between the world in which they live and the broader political, cultural and other social relations. This gulf must be bridged. A policy of activation is required to achieve this.

An example of such activation is the participation of ethnic minorities in general voluntary work. General bodies in Rotterdam also record lower levels of participation in voluntary work among ethnic minorities. The Participation of Ethnic Minorities Project (PPA) is an initiative to change this situation. An initial start was made on this project in 1994, the aim being to get 50 people from ethnic minorities to serve as committee members of general organisations. As of 1 January 1996, this has been followed up by the endeavour to place 300 people from ethnic minorities in administrative work and practical voluntary work with general organisations.

The vision on which the PPA is based is borne by the network of organisations for ethnic minorities which steers the project. This vision encompasses the necessity to reduce the under-representation of ethnic minorities in general organisations. This is a problem for ethnic minorities because they are unable to make sufficient use of the facilities offered by the general organisations. It is a problem for the general organisations because they are unable to reach part of their target group. This applies mainly in a city like Rotterdam, where a considerable proportion of the population is from an ethnic minority. As they are under-represented in the committees of the general organisations, their needs are not expressed in the policy of these organisations and these organisations lose some of their democratic legitimacy. As this is a problem which touches both the ethnic minorities and the Dutch population, it is the responsibility of both to do something about the situation.

Important aspects of this vision are the ideas that participation must be desired by the ethnic groups themselves and geared towards acquiring more influence in society. Ethnic minorities can contribute towards changes in society, in the direction of a more multi-cultural community. Thresholds for ethnic minorities do not disappear by themselves. This means that the people themselves will have to act. Self-help organisations for ethnic minorities are an essential support here. More can be achieved if various organisations for ethnic minorities work together. This vision deviates from one in which ethnic minorities have to be 'helped' to feel at home in the Netherlands and, in time, become incorporated into Dutch society. It is mainly a question of ethnic minorities acquiring an appropriate place within Dutch society. By participating actively in general organisations, they can present themselves as partners within Dutch society, without losing their own identity.

[Back] [Table of contents] [Forward]