We need smart thinking on local diversity policy

Their budgets may be shrinking, but local policymakers can expect to have more freedom than ever before. Jessica Smith looks at Manchester and Copenhagen to examine what this could mean for diverse cities.

The change in UK government and programme of public sector cuts raises the important question of where next for diversity related policy at the local authority level. It was in the midst of this heady context that I undertook a cross-national research project last summer which examined two local authorities’ policy responses to increased ethnic diversity: Manchester Council and the City of Copenhagen.

While Manchester and Copenhagen share a number of common features, including strong, left-leaning political leadership and a historic openness to, and acceptance of, alternative subcultures, the two cities have very different immigration backgrounds. It wasn’t until the 1960s that Copenhagen saw the arrival of significant numbers of non-northern European migrants, largely ‘guest workers’ from Turkey, Yugoslavia and Morocco. In contrast, Manchester has a long history of immigration, from the Jewish and Muslim merchants of the 18th and 19th century and waves of Irish migration, to the ‘Windrush’ generation of the mid-20th century.

Back to the present day, this project sought to examine how policymakers in the two authorities had responded to the opportunities and challenges that had emerged from these respective immigration histories. Interviews with policymakers and representatives from non-governmental organisations in both cities revealed very different approaches to diversity.

In Copenhagen a largely ‘structural’ approach emerged, one that emphasises the role of employment in a Danish-speaking setting as a key milestone of migrants’ ‘integration’ and where the local authority and partners in the social housing sector work to engineer mixed neighbourhoods. In contrast, in Manchester the research uncovered a largely ‘social-cultural’ approach which, under the banner ‘community cohesion’, promoted the importance of shared values and a strong sense of place.

On the one hand, the Copenhagen approach potentially suggests an appreciation of the importance of tackling structural inequalities. However, the view that employment is the way to tackle marginalisation among migrant communities doesn’t seem to have been complemented by successful attempts to remove the barriers that can prevent people entering the labour market.

In contrast, the Manchester approach recognises there is more to being an ‘integrated’ citizen than reaching predetermined milestones: it is also about attachment to place and feeling like a valued member of the community. However, we should be wary of the proposition that civil engagement and restoring a sense of community can ‘fix’ deprived neighbourhoods; whether couched in the policy rhetoric of ‘community cohesion’, ‘Big Society’, or ‘active citizenship’ – a concept that is also becoming increasingly prominent within central government policymaking in Denmark.

This research does not provide answers as to how to strike the right balance between these two approaches, but it does raise important questions about what the role of local government in this policy area could be in the future.

In the post-CSR climate there are far fewer funds available for local authorities to develop community cohesion related projects, and at the same time the wider context of economic insecurity is likely to make some communities fertile ground for a rise in tension, fear and hostility. It is therefore important this area of policy continues to receive the attention, and funding, that it deserves.

But crucially, this juncture in policymaking potentially presents opportunities for new ways of approaching diversity related policy at the local level, particularly when direction from central government is diminishing. Signs suggest the days of centrally defined policy, such as the community cohesion model and before that, multiculturalism, seem to be over. While these are challenging times, the current situation could serve to stimulate creative and locally-specific approaches that aren’t constrained by national policy rhetoric.

Local authorities will have to think carefully about what their future role in this policy area should be and how to make best use of scant resources. Understanding the links between diversity related policy and other fields will be an important first step. For example, how can local economic development strategies that tackle inequality help create the conditions for well-functioning, or to use the previous government’s phraseology, ‘cohesive’, communities?

As the government pursues its rhetoric of ‘fairness’, diversity related policymaking will be ineffective unless it goes hand-in-hand with attempts to tackle structural inequality. It is imperative both central and local government work to ensure equal access to participating in the emerging Big Society agenda and that there is clear accountability for the decisions made and the services delivered, and the impact of this on equalities issues

Download the full report here