Reconceptualizing Integration in Cities of Immigration: A Comparative Study of Berlin and Hong Kong

This article was downloaded by: [218.102.91.72]On: 18 February 2015, At: 02:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Comparative AsianDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcad20

Reconceptualizing Integrationin Cities of Immigration: AComparative Study of Berlinand Hong KongKarin Ling-fung Chau aa School of Modern Languages and Cultures, TheUniversity of Hong Kong , Hong KongPublished online: 03 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Karin Ling-fung Chau (2013) Reconceptualizing Integration inCities of Immigration: A Comparative Study of Berlin and Hong Kong, Journal ofComparative Asian Development, 12:2, 285-315, DOI: 10.1080/15339114.2013.797253

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15339114.2013.797253

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcad20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15339114.2013.797253

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15339114.2013.797253

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reconceptualizing Integration in Cities ofImmigration: A Comparative Study of Berlin and

Hong Kong

Karin Ling-fung CHAU*

School of Modern Languages and CulturesThe University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract

Despite the expansion of the field and the bourgeoning quantity of theliterature on integration policy, few new perspectives are offered onexplaining the problems with integration and the discrepancy betweenactive integration policy and the real process of integration. This paperre-examines the dominant conceptualization of integration and the relatedresearch paradigm in Western academia through the comparative study ofthe challenges of integration in Berlin and Hong Kong. It challengesthe dominant national framework and demonstrates the importance ofcity-level study. It questions the progressive vision of integration and theexaggerated role of integration policy in the actual course of integration.It argues that the understanding of integration cannot be decoupled fromthe distinctive historical context and changing socio-economic circum-stances of the receiving society.

Keywords: Integration; immigration; city; Hong Kong; Berlin;discrimination

Introduction: Reflecting on Integration

The force of immigration in reshaping the development of the receivingsocieties has become increasingly pronounced. The integration of immi-

* Correspondence concering this article may be addressed to be author at: [email protected]

Journal of Comparative Asian Development, 2013

Vol. 12, No. 2, 285–315, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15339114.2013.797253

© 2013 City University of Hong Kong 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

grants, particularly in the European context, has become a crucial, conten-tious and perplexing issue. The challenge cannot be approached with asingle perspective as it belongs to a cluster of intertwined broader questionsof the accommodation of diversity in modern society, the transformation ofthe global order and the sustainment of liberal democracy. There has been aremarkable growth of research on integration in response to the growingpublic attention on the issue. Despite the expansion of the field and thebourgeoning quantity of the literature on integration policy, few new per-spectives are offered on explaining the challenge and on accounting forthe discrepancy between integration policy and the actual process of inte-gration. This is largely due to the fact that few studies attempt to reflecton and question the existing system of conceptualization and formulationof the integration problem.

The major purpose of this paper is to reconceptualize integration in acomparative city context. Inspired by Adrian Favell’s (2001) insightfulexamination of the state of integration research in Europe, this paperattempts to stage a very preliminary challenge to the two related trends inWestern academia, namely the prevalence of nation-oriented research andthe growing expansion of the “integration paradigm”, which render the pro-duction of independent knowledge about the course of integration difficult.City-level research on integration is not novel as a significant amount ofcomparative studies focusing on the local context have already emergedin recent years. With the purpose of drawing a new perspective on theissue, this paper makes a relatively bold attempt to conduct a cross-conti-nent study comparing a European city with its Asian counterpart; bothare renowned for their multiculturality but have developed from a signifi-cantly different socio-economic context and historical background. An inte-grated approach, which combines the examination of the historicalbackground, the formulation of integration policy, the construction of iden-tities and the changing socio-economic context of the receiving cities, willbe adopted in this paper to more accurately portray the real picture of inte-gration.

The primary concern of this paper is not to tackle the technical pro-blems in conducting integration research, but to re-examine the “integrationparadigm” of the field. The major contribution of this paper is that it ques-tions the assumptions behind the formulation of integration policy and therelationship between the implementation of policy and the actual course ofintegration. It also questions the presumed links among diversity, toleranceand integration in cities. It shows that the challenge of integration is a

286 Journal of Comparative Asian Development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

complex issue deeply embedded in the historical context and the currenttransformation of the receiving societies.

City as Context

In the past decade, Europe has been witnessing a strong backlash againstmulticulturalism accompanied by a returning tide of assimilationism (Bru-baker, 2001). The series of incidents such as the Madrid and London bomb-ings, the Muhammad cartoon controversy in Denmark, the assassination ofthe Dutch movie director Theo van Gogh and the riots that broke out in thesuburbs in France propelled fierce debates on the prospect of integration.The public discourse of the issue has in part been agitated and distortedby populist propaganda and sentimental media coverage. The governmentshave been experimenting, albeit inconsistently, with various integration pol-icies, the results of which however remain largely unsatisfactory. Thisexplains why there is a growing demand for research on the issue.

Critique on National Framework

In the field of the study of immigration, it is widely acknowledged that themajority of studies on the integration of immigrants are embedded in thenational framework (see, e.g., Alexander, 2007; Favell, 2001; Ireland,2007; Neymarc, 1998). This emphasis on the nation context can beaccounted for by the fact that integration has been fundamentally perceivedas a part of the incessant nation-building project which entwines thecomplex issues of national identity and national myth (Hollifield, 2008).The nation-state still possesses the power in formulating immigrationpolicy which controls the movement of people and in revising citizenshiplaw which is essential to the legal incorporation of immigrants into thereceiving society.1 “National models”, which contribute to the prevailingcross-national comparative analytical approach in the field, have been for-mulated to compare and explain the models of citizenship and incorporationin different countries, based on their distinctive national historical and cul-tural traits (for seminal work see, e.g., Brubaker, 1992; Castles & Miller,

1 The actions of nation-state today are considerably restrained by the irregulative force of globa-lization and the influence of supra-national bodies, such as the European Union in the Europeancontext.

A Comparative Study of Berlin and Hong Kong 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

2009; Joppke, 1998). While these studies provide valuable study materialsand concepts and therefore contribute an important step to the research onthe challenge of integration in receiving societies, the limitations of theoverall national paradigm have been increasingly realized and addressedin the field (Favell, 2001; Meyers, 2000; Money, 1999; Vermeulen, 1997).

The fundamental problem with the national models is that they actu-ally tend to reiterate the ideal national goals of integration instead ofdescribing the reality (Favell, 2001). The formulation of the integrationpolicy in the receiving countries very often does not fit into the designatedmodel (Wiesbrock, 2009).2 On the other hand, the national framework hasbeen criticized as being too abstract to observe the real effect of inte-gration, which fails to reveal the discrepancy between the national orien-tation and local implementation of the integration policy (Mushaben,2006). While it is the national government which formulates the generaldirection of integration policy, its implementation and consequencestake place at the local level (Penninx et al., 2004). This limitation ofnation-centred research is related to the blind spot of those studies,which, almost inevitably, fail to address the fact that immigrants do notsettle evenly in the same country but are geographically concentrated inbig cities (Doomernik et al., 1997; Penninx et al., 2004; Portes, 2000).Consequently, they very often overlook the local variance, which can beas salient as the national variance (Gesemann, 2006; Mushaben, 2006).This trend is remarkably stark in federal countries such as Germany, inwhich the regional difference is traditionally pronounced. Major citiesin a country, such as New York, Tokyo and London, are also consideredto be more similar to their global counterparts than other smaller cities orthe rural areas within their own countries.

Since immigration and integration are increasingly dictated by a multi-layer of global, regional, national as well as local forces, considering thelimitations discussed, this paper argues that the national framework aloneis not sufficient to explain the complexity. It does not suggest discardingthe nation context as a whole as it is an important starting point for thestudy of the issue. What is urgently needed is a framework which iscapable of describing the real picture of integration more accurately andhonestly. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to take into consider-ation the various layers of context and include multiple perspectives in a

2 Castles and Miller (2009, p. 251), being aware of the limitation of national models, point outthat the models are “neither absolute nor static”.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

single piece of study (Portes, 1997). As the city has become the mediatingcentre of the grid of overlapping national, regional and global layers in theincreasingly networked society (Castells, 2000; Friedmann, 2002; Massey,2007; Sassen, 1996), studies on integration which focus on the local contextare more likely to capture the multiple dynamics as well as the fractures ofthe process.

Bringing the City Back In3

Cities are magnets to immigrants, and they prefer to stay in the largest citiesand at the core of the metropolitan area (Portes, 2000). The intertwiningrelationship between immigration and urban development renders the citythe natural laboratory for the co-existence of differences. Regarding theweaknesses of the dominant framework, there have been growing voicesin the field which demand placing the city at the centre of studies onimmigration and integration (Alexander, 2004; Borkert & Caponio, 2010;Brettell, 2003; Keith, 2005; Sandercock, 2003).

As the city is the place where most of the immigrants settle, it is a con-crete context in which the real process of integration takes place. The costsand benefits of integration are ultimately channelled into and borne by thecity where people compete, struggle and interact with each other. Theimportance of local governance during the course of integration has beengaining attention (Alexander, 2007; Brenner, 1999; Mahnig, 2004). In con-trast to the national government’s major concern with abstract ideas, such asnational identity and national unity, local government is confronted by con-crete integration issues, such as poor performance of immigrant students inschool, residential segregation of immigrant communities, and violencedirected against people of different origins, which involve various aspectsof local policy. A number of studies on local-level integration haveemerged in recent years which can be broadly categorized into single-case studies (e.g., Friedmann & Lehrer, 1997; Grillo, 1985; Kesteloot &Meert, 2000; Vertovec, 1996), comparative studies (e.g., Alexander,2007; Fennema & Tillie, 2004; Ireland, 1994), and large-scale multi-citycomparative research projects.

Some of the city-level studies tend to imply the positive role of localgovernment, especially in comparison with the national government, in

3 The heading is adapted from the title of Caroline Bretell’s (2003) article.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

implementing integration policy which supports integration (e.g., Legge-wie, 1990; Rex & Samad, 1996; Vertovec, 1996). This echoes the viewthat the city, by nature, is more inclined than the nation-state to toleratediversity and therefore has a greater capacity for the integration of immi-grants (Bauböck, 2003). The research of Mahnig (2004) shows that thelocal government is not necessarily more accommodating than the nationalgovernment in incorporating immigrants. Even city life is characterized bythe day-to-day encounters of difference, it is not free from friction, violence,discrimination and exclusion. The dichotomy which posits city as againstnation, describing the former as open, heterogeneous, tolerant andflexible, but labelling the latter as close, homogenous, reactionary andrigid, is a distorted simplification. It is not its tolerant outlook but its unset-tling nature which makes the city an ideal analytical unit for a study on inte-gration. The objectively existing multiculturality of the city does notautomatically imply a smooth process of integration. Social polarizationand inequality, aggravated by the force of globalization, is salient in metro-polises. Social exclusion and segregation as well as the stigmatization ofand discrimination against immigrants are commonplace under such acontext. The city is therefore a concentration point of power strugglesover space, resources and cultures; of contestations among policy makers,politicians, NGOs, immigrant communities and other parties; of claims ofidentity, rights and recognition.

Re-approaching Integration in Comparative Context

Questioning the presumed links among diversity, tolerance and inclusionin the city is the first step to re-examine the conceptualization of the chal-lenge of integration. It should be noted that the debate on the terminologyof integration is not the main concern of this paper.4 The focus of thispaper is to deliberate the way to approach and understand the challengeof integration of immigrants in receiving societies and the way to proble-matize the issue.

4 The term “integration” is itself contentious as it may denote different meanings in different con-texts. Castles and Millers (2009), for example, prefer using other terms such as “incorporation”as “integration” indicates a particular model of incorporation in their work. “Integration” in thispaper is the objective description of the general process of incorporating immigrants into thereceiving society which is interchangeable with terms such as “inclusion” and “incorporation”,which are also considered to be purely descriptive and neutral.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Challenging the “Integration Paradigm”

This paper’s challenge against the “integration paradigm” in the field islargely based on and develops from Favell’s (2001) work. Even thoughFavell’s article mainly focuses on examining cross-national studies on inte-gration policy, his observation and critique can be applied to the researchorientations of the field. To briefly summarize, he argues that many of thestudies in the field have fallen into the “integration paradigm” whichincreasingly aligns with the position of policy makers and practitioners inthe “integration industry”.5 This applies especially to the growing numberof studies commissioned by national/local governments or supranationalinstitutions such as the European Union. Instead of generating independentknowledge, these studies, which resemble policy reports or consultationpapers, reinforce the existing paradigm. The major problem with the para-digm is that it encourages uncritical problematization of the issue. The for-mulation begins with the assumption that receiving societies are facing asimilar threat of disintegration caused by the failing integration of immi-grants. The studies then compare and examine the effectiveness of inte-gration policy in different countries and provide “practical” advice on theformulation of better policy which will contribute to an increased degreeof integration in society.

A number of questions have been raised upon reflection on this para-digm of thinking. How should one perceive the notion of “integration”?Traditionally, the discourse on integration is divided by the binary opposi-tion between assimilationism and multiculturalism (Abu-Laban, 2002;Grillo, 2005). The essentialist view on integration overlooks the fact thatcultures are constantly thrown into an unceasing process of remaking (Ben-habib, 2002). No culture is absolutely immune to the influences of other cul-tures and therefore immigrants are neither completely assimilated norconstantly segregated in their own circles. It is also wrong to assume thatintegration is the precondition of society. What is closely related to it isthe question of measurement of integration. The very idea of measuringthe degree of integration reflects the false presumption that it is possible

5 The term “integration industry” is adapted from the notion of “multiculturalism industry” inH. E. Baber’s (2008) work. She criticizes how certain NGOs and minority communitiesprovide various programmes and facilities to support the ethnic minorities’ attempt to perpetu-ate and expand the “industry”. This paper acknowledges the attention individual parties andpractitioners have paid to the course of integration. What is being emphasized here is theembedded self-perpetuating mechanism of the whole industry.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

to rank society vertically from integration down to disintegration. The realintegration process spans various aspects of social life leading to the juxta-position of overlapping layers of juncture and disjuncture in society. Whileindicators of integration, such as the one devised by the Berlin government,facilitate comparison and evaluation of policy, they only portray, at best, thedegree of formal integration such as participation in politics, performance inschool and employment status. Informal integration such as the develop-ment of a sense of belonging and hyphenated identities as well as day-to-day interaction in the neighbourhoods is hard to translate into figures andstatistics. Instead of reproducing “hard facts”, the main responsibility ofthe intellectuals is to discern and explain the important ungraspable reality.

The dominant notion of “integration” actually emphasizes “action”, beit the active intervention of the government or the active participation ofthe immigrants. It seems that integration is the process of piecing the scat-tered puzzles together. The relationship between integration policy and theactual course of integration should be re-examined. Why do discrimi-nation, stigmatization and alienation still prevail in society despite the suc-cessive formulation and implementation of various integration policies?One has to acknowledge and admit the fact that multicultural education,workshops and programmes propagating diversity and tolerance and thecultural exchange alone does not lead to better integration as it is affectedby the distinctive and complex historical background of the receivingsociety and the broader changing socio-economic circumstances. Inte-gration should not be considered as something which can be activelyencouraged or manipulated. The point here is not to underestimate therole of integration policy as it provides the important source of formal inte-gration, what is being criticized is the overemphasis on official interventionin the course of integration. This is actually related to the conception thatnon-integration means disintegration. Society is not only composed ofactive participating individuals. Disengagement resulting from non-inter-action which does not bring about conflict does not necessarily lead tothe breakup of society (Favell, 2001).

To summarize, the existing conceptualization of integration is proble-matic as it assumes integration as a precondition of society, overemphasizesthe effect of official involvement in the course of integration and thereforefails to capture the complex reality. This comparative study of the chal-lenges of integration in Berlin and Hong Kong attempts to furtherexamine the existing paradigm of thinking and challenge the imaginedvision of integration.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Cross-context Comparative Approach: Limitations andPotentials

One should not neglect the fact that so far the discussion on the existingresearch paradigm in the field is actually embedded largely in the EuropeanorWestern context. Since themajor purpose of this paper is to re-examine thewholeWestern paradigm, perspectives outside the paradigm are very impor-tant to the study. The difficulty of conducting a comparative study lookinginto both European and Asian contexts is tremendous and the limitationsare well acknowledged. The problem is that the existing literature andmodels as well as vocabularies and terminologies on the integration issuehave largely been developed from the Western context (Kymlicka, 2005;Lee, 2004). During the process of translation, the relevance of certain con-texts will be lost and therefore it is not always feasible to fit the situationof Hong Kong, as in this case, neatly into theWestern framework. The exist-ing technical problemswith comparative research on integration have not yetbeen taken into consideration. At first glance, comparing Berlin and HongKong seems to be a comparison of apples and oranges, if the comparativemethod is to be understood as amere counting of similarities and differences.One of the essential values of comparison, however, is to discover peculiarityand demand for explanation (Skocpol & Somers, 1980).

Berlin, the capital city and one of the 16 states (Länder) of Germany,appears to be a typical European case. Similar to other big Europeancities, with a considerable number of immigrants, Berlin positions andmarkets itself as a multicultural and tolerant city which has implementedan active integration policy. The course of integration there has been sub-stantially transformed by the immigration of guest-workers (Gastarbeiter)into Germany and the multifaceted discourse on the issue in the broaderEuropean context. What is not so typical about Berlin is that it is one ofthe cheapest major cities in Western Europe. It is still suffering economicstrain resulting from German reunification. Its economy and infrastructureare underdeveloped, a context which is highly relevant to the challengeof integration.

The case of Hong Kong, on the other hand, looks peculiar from theEuropean perspective. Undergoing the transformation from a formerBritish colony into a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of thePeople’s Republic of China (PRC), the quasi city-state is characterized bythe hybrid cultures of East and West. If Berlin is an emerging economy,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Hong Kong is a well-established financial centre driven by materialism. Thechallenge of integration is closely related to colonial history and HongKong’s relationship with China. The relatively high degree of social stab-ility given the absence of any mature integration regime renders the cityan interesting case to be studied.

While Berlin is a developing capital city with an established integrationregime, Hong Kong is a highly developed global city which has onlyrecently started to pay attention to the integration issue. Both cities are cul-turally rich metropolises which have a cosmopolitan outlook and they enjoyrelatively greater autonomous power than other cities in formulating socio-economic policies which affect the course of integration. Despite theirprimary difference, a comparison of the course of integration in bothcities actually reveals the problems with the dominant national frameworkand conceptualization of integration in the field.

Juggling Poverty and Solidarity: Perplexing Course ofIntegration in Berlin

As the embodiment of “living history” characterized by “irreconcilable pasts,belligerent present, and unharmonious future under construction” (Soysal,2001, p. 7), Berlin is a peculiar but fascinating city which is used to disconti-nuities and upheavals and which became the new capital of Germany afterreunification. The culturally rich and diverse city is characterized by astrong tradition of political and social radicalism. Berlin is experiencing a“integration deficit” as it is cross-cut by various deep socio-economic aswell as cultural–religious cleavages, resulting not only from the contestationbetween Germans and non-Germans, but also from the persisting fracturebetween the East and the West (Silver, 2006). Despite the recent growth ofBerlin, driven by the flourishing dual pillars of tourism and culture, thecourse of social integration takes a particularly perplexing form in this“poor but sexy”6 capital city, which faces serious financial problems.7

6 The phrase is taken from the comment by Klaus Wowereit, the governing mayor of Berlin, onthe city during an interview in 2003: “We are poor but sexy” (Wir sind zwar arm, aber trotzdemsexy).

7 The capital city is impoverished, and its debt (of around €62 billion, as recorded in 2011)renders its per capita debt level as one of the highest among all the states. The city’sfinancial situation has been so bad that it had to appeal to the federal government for assistance,a request struck down by the court in 2006.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Although the city has witnessed a thriving immigration of EU citizens,the core of contestation lies in the integration of non-EU Muslim immi-grants who are considered both ethnically and culturally alien to the receiv-ing German society. On the other hand, the integration of a substantialnumber of returning German emigrants (Aussiedler) is also problematic,but the issue has not yet aroused fierce debate in society. A string ofissues related to integration, such as the substantial socio-economic gapbetween Germans and the non-German population, the discourse of Germa-nophobia (Deutschfeindlichkeit) in school, the disputes over the building ofmosques (Jonker, 2005), and fear of the emergence of a “parallel society”(Parallelgesellschaft) characterized by the residential segregation of immi-grant communities, have become the major concerns of the receivingsociety.

Overview of the Immigrant Communities

Berlin, the largest city in Germany, has, in absolute terms, the largest popu-lation with an immigrant background. In 2007, 470,003 out of the3,353,854 residents were registered as foreigners in the city. The percentageof the population with an immigrant background reached 25.7%.8 Thelargest group of foreigners residing in Berlin comes from Turkey(105,671) which is followed by those from Poland (40,855), Serbia(19,420), Italy (15,336) and Russia (14,939). One of the main features ofthe non-German population in Berlin is its extremely uneven geographicaldistribution across the city (Piening & Germershausen, 2007). Unlike Paris,for example, they are concentrated in the inner city instead of the on the out-skirts.9 The distribution also exhibits a salient East–West divergence.10 TheBerlin authority identifies employment, education and equal opportunitiesas the three major challenges of the course of integration in the city. Thereal challenge of integration is that the socio-economic gap betweenGermans and non-Germans, albeit narrowed in recent years, remains alar-

8 The figure is relatively low when compared to other big German cities, such as Frankfurt amMain (over 40%), Stuttgart (around 38%) or Cologne (around 33%).

9 Boroughs (Bezirke), with the highest percentage of population with an immigrant background,such as Mitte (45%), Neukölln (39.6%) and Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg (35.9%), are all in centralareas of the city.

10 The percentage of the population with an immigrant background in boroughs on the easternside of the city remains relatively low: Treptow-Köpenick (7.1%), Marzahn-Hellersdorf(10.4%), Pankow (11.1%) and Lichtenberg (13.7%).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

mingly large. For example, in 2008, 14.3% of Germans were unemployed;but the figure among non-Germans was much higher, amounting to 25.9%.In 2009, only 2,578 out of 52,296 (4.9%) trainees (Azubi) employed werenon-Germans. The “under-performance” of non-Germans does not onlycontribute to the stigmatization of immigrants, but also leads to agrowing distrust among the natives towards their neighbours, which isexemplified in the social rifts and tensions in the so-called problematic quar-ters. Berlin’s inner city has become a hot spot (Brennpunkt) in whichconflict, poverty and segregation entangle and concentrate. The unemploy-ment rates of the three boroughs having the largest share of their populationwith an immigrant background were also the highest across the city in2010.11

Overview of Berlin’s Immigration History

It is not possible to understand the challenge of integration in Berlin withoutlooking into the history of immigration in the city. The development ofBerlin into a city of immigrants (Einwanderungsstadt) is a long process,which received the greatest impetus following the building of the BerlinWall and the introduction of the national guest-workers programme.While there are distinctive features of Berlin’s immigration regime, it haslargely developed along national lines and mirrored its pattern.

The Nazi regime and the Second World War virtually destroyed thediversity of Berlin, as in the immediate post-war period the foreign popu-lation of the city was meagre (Kleff & Seidel, 2009). The upheavalbrought about by the subsequent outbreak of the Cold War and the divisionof Germany completely reshaped the city and its immigration history. Sincethe erection of the Berlin Wall, West and East Berlin had passed throughdifferent courses of history; the divergence is so severe that it is stillvisible today. After the building of the Berlin Wall, West Berlin had agreat shortage of labour, which was compensated by the inflow of foreignworkers recruited through the national guest-workers programme. Thenumber peaked in the early 1970s and workers from Turkey and theformer Yugoslavia became the dominant groups. East Berlin, conversely,strictly regulated the inflow of immigrants. The East German government

11 Neukölln (17.3%), Mitte (15.6%) and Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg (14.9%) (LandesBank Berlin,2011). The unemployment rates in Steglitz-Zehlendorf, Treptow-Köpenick and Pankow, forexample, were lower than 10%.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

also signed certain worker contracts with countries from the Eastern Blocand other communist regimes, but the immigrant workers were rigidly con-trolled and only a handful of them managed to stay after the termination oftheir contracts. Consequently, the foreign population in East Berlinremained small. The discrepancy between the policies of the two regimesexplains the persisting uneven spatial distribution of the non-German popu-lation in Berlin today.

Mirroring the development of immigration to the country, through themeans of family reunification, the influx of immigrants to West Berlin didnot stop after the official termination of the guest-workers programme in1973. This period alsowitnessed the entry of a significant number of refugeesfrom Poland, Lebanon and Iran. In the 1980s, the political turbulence inEastern Europe and the former Yugoslavia contributed to the growinginflux of Aussiedler from the Eastern Bloc and war refugees from theformer Yugoslavia. When the Wall crumbled in 1989, the city was throwninto unrest and went through frenzied transformation which altered everyaspect of urban life there. With the reopening of the “border”, there wasfevered migration to and from the city. The number of foreign populationin Berlin increased tremendously from 233,011 in 1980 to 355,356 in1991. The flow only calmed down in the latter half of the 1990s.

The Relevance of the German Context

As the development of Berlin’s integration regime reflects the changingcourse of German immigration, it is important to see how the Germancontext affects the conceptualization and course of integration in the city.

The discourse on Germany’s immigration and integration regimeusually starts with the excerpts of officials claiming that Germany is nota country of immigration. Germany has a deep-rooted romanticist traditionadhering to the particular and essentialist notion of the “spirit of the people”(Volksgeist), which is contradictory to the liberal and universal aspiration ofthe Enlightenment (Habermas, 1997, 2001). Traditionally, the Germannotion of citizenship is regarded as an ethno-cultural one (Brubaker,1992).12 Until the groundbreaking reform in 1999, the German nationality

12 It should be emphasized that this kind of “volkish” interpretation of German citizenship shouldbe treated with caution; the notion of citizenship is not static as it has been responding to thechanging circumstances and reflecting the shifting definition of the country itself (Palmowski,2008).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

law basically adhered to the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood),which conferred citizenship only along the tie of German blood reflectingthe understanding of the country as a “cultural nation” (Kulturnation), inwhich the German culture is the binding force of the people. The strongbelief in the notion of “Germany for Germans” still persisted after theend of the Second World War in various forms (Von Dirke, 1994).

While the reform of the nationality law in 1999 and the promulgation ofthe immigration law (Zuwanderungsgesetz) in 2004 signalled a changingperception of the German nation, they have not terminated the contestationsof integration. There were impassioned debates in German society soon afterthe implementation of the new nationality law over the idea of “guidingculture” (Leitkultur), a concept originally coined by Bassam Tibi (1998)but popularized and reinterpreted by CDUpoliticians. The focus of contesta-tion is whether immigrants should adhere to themainstreamGerman guidingculture. The debates over “guiding culture” were parallel to the increasinglypronounced discourses of the “parallel society”. The notion was originallycoined by Wilhelm Heitmeyer (Heitmeyer et al., 1997), which suggeststhat cultural segregation of certain immigrant communities has emerged insociety. While scholars such as Dieter Oberndörfer (2001) do not regardthis as a specific immigrant problem, Thomas Meyer (2002) warns againstthe growing tendency in multicultural cities such as Berlin. The debatesdemonstrate that the issues of German identity and integration of immigrantsare still highly contentious.

Overview of Berlin’s Integration Regime

While the Berlin case is inevitably one of the German cases, due to its dis-tinctive historical development and political tradition, the orientation andoutlook of its integration policy is remarkably different from that of thefederal government. The Berlin government attempts to distance itselffrom the federal government on various integration issues.13

The major institution of integration in Berlin is the “Commissioner forIntegration and Migration of the Senate of Berlin” (Beauftragte des BerlinerSenats für Integration und Migration). Berlin’s integration regime hasundergone a long course of transformation. In fact Berlin was the first

13 For instance, contrary to the stance of the federal government, Berlin’s integration regimefavours the granting of dual citizenship and the rights to vote in municipal elections to resi-dents who do not possess German passports.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Land to establish the “Office of Foreigner Commissioner” (Amt der Auslän-derbeauftragten) in 1981 to deal with the issue of integration. Berlin’s inte-gration regime has not only grown in size but has also placed moreemphasis on developing policy concepts. It introduced the first integrationconcept (Integrationskonzept) in 2005 and the system of integration moni-toring in 2007 (Integrationsmonitor). The most remarkable transformation,however, is the shift from the discourse of threat in the public sphere to thediscourse of potential (Brady, 2004).

Ensuring equal access to the employmentmarket, schooling and housingfor non-Germans is themajor concern of the regime. This is illustrated by thecontent of the integration law (Integrationsgesetz) passed in 2010 whichplaces special emphasis on enhancing intercultural opening (InterkulturelleÖffnung), to be accomplished by drastically raising the share of employeeswith an immigrant background in the public sector. It is true that Berlin’s inte-gration regime plays an important and pioneering role in implementingliberal integration policy. No other major German city possesses such a tre-mendous and diversified network consisting ofmigrant organizations, initiat-ives and associations working on integration (Gesemann, 2009).

While there are positive outcomes of Berlin’s integration policy, theregime has not yet succeeded in resolving problems such as racism, self-imposed segregation and other clashes between cultures and religions.The effects of many of the high-profile events and activities, such as theCarnival of Cultures (Karneval der Kulturen), the establishment ofBerlin’s Day of Integration and the Integration Prize (Integrationspreis),and official engagements, such as the convening of the Islam Forum, aremore symbolic and promotional than substantial. The fault line betweenthe liberal, multicultural and open image of the city and the bleak socialreality of exclusion and polarization is increasingly magnified.

Persisting Socio-economic Challenges

Unemployment, especially the unemployment of the non-German popu-lation, remains the most alarming problem of the city as the unemploymentrate of Berlin is one of the highest among all the Länder. The cause of today’srelatively high unemployment rate among non-German nationals should beexplained through the broader historical context. The economic predicamentis a structural legacy of the ColdWar era. After German reunification, Berlinlost the subsidies previously granted by the federal government which


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

severely undermined the city’s capacity to accommodate the drastic econ-omic restructuring which followed. Undergoing the course of de-industrial-ization, Berlin lost around 200,000 jobs between 1991 and 2006 inmanufacturing, trade and energy production (Stratenschulte, 2008). Thishas disproportionally aggravated the economic situation of the non-German population and particularly the guest-workers, the majority ofwhom were recruited to work in the industrial sector. Berlin’s overall unem-ployment rate was estimated to be 7.6% in 1990 and only 11.5% of non-Germans were unemployed. In 1992 the overall unemployment rate rose to12%, in which the share of the non-Germans unemployed surged to20.8%. By 1998, 33.5% of the non-Germans were unemployed comparedto 16.4% among Germans. The statistics demonstrate that the problem ofunemployment before reunification was not as severe as at present and thegap between Germans and non-Germans was only small. While the firstand second generations of immigrants suffered directly from post-reunifica-tion economic transformation, that alone is no longer a sufficient explanationfor the high unemployment rate of the young non-German population today,which is closely related to their difficult course of integration in school.

ThePISA study released in 2001 revealed the failing quality of educationin Germany and created a shockwave across the whole country. The studyalso revealed the acute discrepancy between the performance of studentsof German origin and those of non-German origin. TheRütli-Schule incidentclearly demonstrates that there are some real problemswith the integration ofstudents of immigrant background in the school. In 2006, the teachers of thisschool, in which over 80% of students had a non-German background, wrotean emergency letter to the government asking for the school to be shut downas the violence among the students had become unmanageable. There is fre-quent media coverage of mobbing of German students in schools where theshare of non-German students is extremely high. The lack of teachers with animmigrant background is a major but not the only factor behind the misman-agement. In fact there are fundamental conflicts between different cultures,religions and communities in the neighbourhood.

Many conflicts arising from the course of integration actually stemfrom the complicated role of religion in a secular society like Berlin.14

The society was shocked when Hatun Sürücü, a German of Kurdishorigin, was killed by her brother in an “honour killing”. All together six“honour killings” took place between 2004 and 2005 in the city. It signalled

14 Two-thirds of Berlin’s population does not belong to any religion organizations.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

an urgent warning regarding the course of integration, as people are mur-dered because they become too German. What is stressed here is that reli-gion itself is not neutral and there are real conflicts in the city between someof the Islamic practices and Western liberal values. This echoes fear of theemergence of a “parallel society” within the city. While some of the easternparts of the city have been regarded by people with non-German back-grounds as no-go areas belonging to the sphere of influence of neo-Nazis,some Germans are also avoiding “immigrant areas” such as Neukölln.

There has been a surge of right-wing sentiment in the city in recentyears which is exemplified by the growth of right-wing populist movementssuch as Pro-Berlin and increasingly aggressive and violent neo-Nazimarches.15 There are complicated reasons for the revival of right-wingradicalism, but the distrust of foreigners remains one of the major factors.This demonstrates that despite the presence of an active integrationpolicy, the process of integration in Berlin remains contentious.

Tolerance or Indifference: Accommodating Difference inHong Kong

The story of Hong Kong demonstrates how contradictions and oddities canbe channelled into a chain of miracles. The barren rock with a cluster offishing villages over 160 years ago has already become one of the mostdynamic and cosmopolitan global cities in Asia. Even though the city hasexperienced economic stagnation in the past decade, as one of theleading financial centres in the world, in contrast to Berlin, it remains pros-perous.16 Boasting a unique blend of Chinese and Western cultures, themulticulturality of the former British colony, now a Special AdministrativeRegion of the People’s Republic of China, seems self-explanatory. Contraryto Berlin, while Hong Kong is diverse and dynamic, it is also relatively safeand calm with low crime figures.17 Against such a background, the accom-modation of diversity in society has rarely attracted serious discussionssimilar to those in its European counterpart.

15 During a recent march in May 2011, some neo-Nazi members broke through the police lineand attacked foreigners on the street.

16 The estimated GDP per capita amounted to US$45,900 in 201017 “Hong Kong is concurrently one of the safest cities in the world, and it is perceived as one of

the least corrupt countries in Asia” (Broadhurs et al., 2010, p. 3).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

But the presumed tolerance of difference in the city does not coincidewith the prevalence of discrimination against new arrivals from theMainlandand non-White ethnic minorities in society. Similar to Berlin, Hong Kong isalso facing the two-fold challenge of integrating immigrants from the Main-land and those from other South Asian countries. Even though the politics ofidentity, which takes a starker ideological form in Berlin, has not yet per-vaded Hong Kong society, the claims of cultures are gaining strongervoices which can be exemplified by the heightened group conflicts inrecent years. The recent decision of the government to distribute HK$6,000 to every Hong Kong permanent resident (PR)18 aged 18 or abovehas aroused previously rare open conflict between Hong Kong people andthe new arrivals from the Mainland. On the other hand, a wave of outrightracist sentiment against Filipinos emerged after eight Hong Kong touristswere killed in the Manila hostage incident in August 2010. While theimmediate anger may cool down as time passes by, these incidents actuallyreveal the long neglected problem of deep-seated prejudice against theothers in society. Contrary to Berlin’s case, the integration of Chinese immi-grants instead of ethnic others is the major concern of Hong Kong society.

Overview of the Immigrant Communities

Compared to Berlin, Hong Kong is a “natural” society of immigration as“Hong Kong people” are largely the product of successive waves of immigra-tion. There are fewHongKong residents who are indigenous inhabitants of theland.19 In 1991, 77% of the people residing in Hong Kong were either bornoutside the territory or had at least one parent born outside it (Suen, 1994).In 2006, 39.7% of the total population in Hong Kong was foreign-born. It ispeculiar thatwhilemost of theHongKong residents are themselves immigrantsfrom theMainlandor their descendants, prejudice against newarrivals from theMainland still prevails in society. The definition of “new arrivals” itself is dis-

18 The following persons are permanent residents of Hong Kong: (i) Chinese nationals who wereborn in Hong Kong; (ii) Chinese citizens resident in Hong Kong for not less than 7 years; (iii)Chinese citizens born outside Hong Kong to a parent listed in (i) or (ii); (iv) non-Chinese citi-zens resident in Hong Kong for not less than 7 years; (v) persons under 21 years of age born inHong Kong of non-Chinese citizens listed in (iv); (vi) persons with the right of abode in HongKong only before the establishment of the HKSAR; (vii) persons who were permanently resi-dent in Hong Kong before 1 July 1997.

19 There were 94,111 indigenous inhabitants registered as electors in the 2011 Village Represen-tative Election.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

putable. Normally it refers to persons from the Mainland having resided inHong Kong for less than seven years (PMRs), the number of whom amountedto 217,103 in 2006, accounting for 3.2% of the total population.

On the other hand, it should be noted that Hong Kong is a predomi-nantly Chinese society in which ethnic minorities account for only 5% ofthe total population. South Asian immigrants usually refer to those whoimmigrated to Hong Kong from India, Nepal and Pakistan. The size oftheir populations are 20,444 (Indians), 15,950 (Nepalese) and 11,111(Pakistani) which are one of the major non-White ethnic minority groupsin Hong Kong apart from Filipinos and Indonesians, a substantial portionof whom were immigrant workers. Although the South Asian group consti-tuted only 0.7% of the total population, their communities in Hong Kongare vibrant and have a long tradition.

Overview of Hong Kong’s Immigration History

The immigration history of Hong Kong is dominated by the influx of immi-grants fromMainlandChina and is closely related and responsive to the chan-ging socio-political circumstances and resulting unrest in China (Law&Lee,2006).

Development of Immigration from the Mainland

After the Second World War, as the colonial government of Hong Kong wasunable to restrain the fervent inflow of people resulting from the Communisttakeover in China, it had to abandon the traditional open door policytowards Chinese immigrants by introducing a quota system regulating theirentry (Chan, 2004; Law & Lee, 2006). The Chinese government wouldissue a one-way permit (OWP) to successful applicants as an exit permit toenter Hong Kong for residence. The first wave of illegal immigration fromthe Mainland emerged in the 1960s resulting, from the drastic socio-politicalturmoil caused by the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Thecolonial government responded by introducing the “touch-base” policy in1974 (Lam & Liu, 1998).20 This sweep of illegal immigration coincidedwith the economic boom of the city and the advent of the Hong Kong identity(Ku & Pun, 2004). The differentiation between Hong Kong people and immi-

20 Under this policy, if immigrants successfully crossed the border and settled in Hong Kong,they would not be repatriated to China.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

grants from the Mainland became increasingly pronounced in society. Due tothe unceasing influx of immigrants, the colonial government abandoned the“touch-base” policy in 1980 and all illegal immigrants were to be deported.The Chinese government also agreed to set the quota of OWP to 150 perday. Apart from the OWP, the Chinese government also issued two-waypermits (TWP) to citizens for the purpose of visiting family members anddoing business in Hong Kong. But a considerable number of TWP holdersdid not return to China and stayed in Hong Kong illegally after their permitsexpired. The issue of the right of abode (ROA) for the children and spousesof Hong Kong PRs residing in China aroused great controversy on the eveof the 1997 handover. The Court of Final Appeal judged in 1999 that childrenborn toHongKong parents are entitled to theROA. The ruling createdmarkedsuspicion and fear in HongKong society as the people were worried about theoverwhelming influx of immigrants from the Mainland.

Development of Immigration from South Asia

The early immigration of South Asians and their subsequent settlement inHong Kong was largely the legacy of the British colonial rule. To facilitatethe running of the government, Britain brought into the city a significantnumber of South Asian subjects, predominantly Indians, from its colonialempire. These South Asians were largely “functional” immigrants as theywere recruited to perform designated tasks including serving in the armyto maintain law and order, providing clerical support to trading firms andfilling in jobs such as police officer and guards (Weiss, 1991). After theSecond World War, facing the growing influx of Chinese immigrantsfleeing political turbulence in China and the waves of social riots inHong Kong, Pakistanis were successively recruited to join the policeforce to help patrol the city and maintain order. The Gurkha brigade ofNepalese soldiers was also summoned to share the security duties andpatrol the border. Since the mid-1990s, due to the economic turmoil inthe region, the number of South Asian immigrants also increased.

The Absence of Nation and the Emergence of the“Hongkongese” Identity

in contrast to Berlin, the notions of nation and nationalism are at odds withthe local mentality. Ackbar Abbas (1997) suggests that the handover of thesovereignty of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China in 1997,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

ending over 150 years of the British colonial rule, cannot simply beregarded as a reunification similar to the German reunification. The“return” of Hong Kong to the motherland is in fact the city’s experimentwith something new, or, to be exact, a transformation into something “unfa-miliarly familiar”.

With an emphasis on ensuring socio-political stability, the policy orien-tation of the colonial regime largely followed the line of laissez-faire andsmall government (S. Lau, 1982). Such a market-driven approach resultedin the predominance of utilitarianism and materialism in society. Thephenomenon was closely associated with the prevalent mood of politicalapathy, a product of the repressive nature of colonial rule. It is undersuch a background that Hong Kong was alienated from the concept ofnation and nationalism. The colonial government in fact discouragedstrong national belonging to both Britain and China (K. Lau, 2009).21 Con-sequently, the idea of “nation” became distant and somewhat burdensome tothe increasingly fluid self-understanding of Hong Kong.

In fact, the sense of localism and the notion of “Hongkongese” (香港

人) did not start to gain prominence until the 1970s (Chun, 1996; A. Ku,2004). After the 1966 and 1967 riots, the colonial government began todrastically adjust and improve its policy. A sense of depoliticized andcivic identification with Hong Kong as “home” was gradually cultivatedin the 1970s coinciding with the takeoff of Hong Kong’s economy(Leung, 2004). This emerging Hong Kong identity largely distanced, ifnot distinguished itself from the Mainland, including the regime, thepeople and the culture. The signing of the Sino-British Declaration(1984) was a turning point not just of the Hong Kong history, but also ofthe development of the Hong Kong culture and identity. In face of thereturn to an unfamiliar motherland, anxiety and fear were prevalent insociety, creating a wave of emigration in the late 1980s and early 1990s.For the first time in its “imagined history”,22 the “city of transients” experi-enced the crisis of disappearance as it had to face the demand of integratinginto the definite and nationalistic boundary, from which it had endeavouredto distance itself (Abbas, 1997). This “gathering identity”23 received greaterimpetus after the 4 June 1989 incident, which shattered hope and trust in thecommunist government of China. Carrying sharp suspicion, zoomed differ-

21 China here refers to both the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China.22 Hong Kong history is perceived by many as the history of colonial Hong Kong.23 A term coined by Dick Wilson (1990).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

entiation and intensified ambivalence, the Hong Kong people who hadbecome conscious of their own identity, waited anxiously for the newencounter of the forgotten familiar on the eve of 1997.

The context of the emergence of the Hongkongese identity is crucial to theunderstanding of the challenge of integration as it presents a barrier to immi-grants from the Mainland who are considered its opposite and to South Asianimmigrants who find it hard to fit into the hybrid Chinese–Western framework.

Overview of Hong Kong’s Integration Regime

Traditionally, Hong Kong has no systematic and active integration policy toaccommodate immigrants and the society has generally been disinterestedin converting or assimilating the immigrants into the mainstream culture.The Hong Kong government has only recently started to carry out certainintegration measures.

The government set up the Race Relations Unit in 2002 to promoteracial harmony in society and facilitate the course of integration of non-Chinese ethnic communities. In contrast to Berlin, Hong Kong has notyet created an integration office to deal with the issue specifically. TheRace Relations Unit is under the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB), which isone of the major departments responsible for handling social affairs. TheConstitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau (CMAB) also providessupport and funding to the integration programme as it is in charge ofhuman rights affairs in Hong Kong. The independent Equal OpportunitiesCommittee, on the other hand, oversees specifically the implementationof the Racial Discrimination Ordinance (RDO). The cornerstone of thedevelopment of the integration regime so far is the promulgation of theRDO in 2008 which took effect in 2009. While ethnic minorities eventuallygained legal protection from discrimination, immigrants from the Mainlandwere excluded from the ordinance.

Persisting Socio-economic Challenges

The course of integration of the new arrivals remains mostly difficult. In2006, the median income of working PMRs amounted only to $6,000,only 60% of that of the total working population. In 2011, an adaptedsong titled The Locust World (蝗蟲天下) directed against immigrantsfrom the Mainland, in which they are portrayed as locusts exploiting the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

resources of Hong Kong, appeared on the internet and became a hit. Eventhough immigrants from the Mainland are ethnic Chinese, they are veryoften regarded as the “cultural other” in Hong Kong society. The intoleranceof immigrants from the Mainland in fact reveals the core fear of HongKong: becoming a Chinese city. The influx of people from the Mainland,including professionals, students, immigrants and tourists through the Indi-vidual Visit Scheme after 1997, threatens the self-image of Hong Kong as aunique hybrid city unbounded by either the East or the West. Even thoughimmigrants from the Mainland face prejudice, their prospects are stillslightly better than those of the South Asians who have immigrated toHong Kong recently or are the descendants of earlier immigrants.

HongKong is described as a perfect mixture of Eastern andWestern cul-tures, but the reality is that it is a “semi-ethnocracy” inwhich the East actuallyrefers to the Chinese while the West means the White (Sautman, 2004). Theethnic minorities in between are largely discriminated against and margina-lized in society (Heung, 2006; Jacques, 2003; H. Ku, 2006; Loper, 2004;Sautman, 2004). While it is true that racial discrimination in Hong Kongdoes not take a violent form as in Berlin, it is deep-rooted in society as colo-nial rule is the exemplification of “institutionalized racism” (Jacques, 2003).The end ofBritish colonial rule and the return ofHongKong toChina in 1997was a turning point for the South Asian communities as it is becomingdifficult for them to fit into the increasingly Sinicized context.

The language barrier is the major obstacle to their integration, which isclearly reflected in their difficult experiences in the labourmarket and school.Following the handover, Chinese language proficiency requirements forappointment to disciplined services were introduced. Previously, forexample, police officers were given the option to write reports in English,but now they are expected to write in Chinese. The problem is that whilemany South Asians are able to converse in fluent Cantonese, they areweak in writing and reading Chinese. The problem is especially salient inthe schooling of the South Asian youth. After 1997, under the policy ofmother-tongue teaching, only 114 schools which use English as themedium of instruction (EMI) remained. Until 2005, non-Chinese studentswere automatically excluded from the mainstream schools, and assigned toa small number of “designated” schools. It is only since 2005 that the govern-ment has allowed the ethnic minority (EM) students to gain equal access tomainstream schools. The inflexibility of the education system is alsoreflected in the path leading to local tertiary education. Under the Joint Uni-versity Programmes Admissions System (JUPAS), EM students are defined


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

as “local” and they have to fulfil the requirement of passing ChineseLanguage in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination(HKCEE), which is an insurmountable hurdle for them (Loper, 2004).

Hong Kong is not as multicultural and tolerant as people presume.Immigrants from the Mainland and non-White ethnic minorities faceserious stigmatization and discrimination. Undergoing political transitionand economic restructuring, the city is encountering the invisible wavesof social turbulence. The growing indifference to the integration issuewill aggravate the problem.

Interpreting the Cases of Berlin and Hong Kong: Implicationfor the Reconceptualization of Integration

The respective studies of the challenges of integration in Berlin and HongKong demonstrate that even though cities are perceived as facing commonchallenges of restructuring the economy and the welfare system in the chan-ging global order, the problems with integration are unique in each case, asthey are embedded in the distinctive context of the receiving society. Thecomparison of Berlin and Hong Kong contributes to a more thorough re-examination of the understanding of integration.

The Relevance of Nation and the Limitations of a NationalFramework

It seems contradictory to state that the examples of Berlin and Hong Kongdemonstrate the relevance of the national context in shaping the course ofintegration and at the same time reveal the very limitations of the national fra-mework in the integration study. This conclusion is drawn from the obser-vation that the challenge of integration in both cities is substantiallyshaped by the national context. Even though Berlin’s government shows adifferent integration orientation than the national government, the patternof immigration, the public discourses of parallel society and the sentimentagainst Muslim immigrants are all closely embedded in the wider Germancontext. On the other hand, it seems that the Hong Kong case is a counter-example as the concept of “nation” is largely absent in the course of inte-gration. But this “a-national” nature in fact shows that the national contextis still highly relevant as the sentiment against immigrants from theMainland


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

is largely a reaction against the imposition of theChinese nation on the polity.One should not forget that the history of the immigration ofChinese people toHong Kong is closely related to socio-political development in China andthat the predicament of non-Chinese immigrants is in part due to thegrowing difficulty of fitting into the Chinese framework since Hong Konghas become, in the factual sense, a part of the Chinese nation. The relevanceof the national context in fact accentuates the limitations of the national fra-mework. It should be noted that such contestation between nation and cityand the dynamics involved in the process of integration can only be capturedin city-level studies. Nation-centred studies, inevitably, are not able todiscern such distinctive context.

Non-pattern of Integration in a Changing Context

The studies also show that it is hard to presume any formula of successfulintegration or draw up a pattern or model of integration as the developmentdepends on the distinctive and changing context. Why, for instance, does theintegration of Chinese immigrants arouse fierce debate in Hong Kong whilethe integration of ethnic Germans in Berlin, even though not unproblematic,is not as contentious as the integration of Muslim immigrants? The HongKong case is largely due to its long colonial history and the fear of its disap-pearance during its transformation into a SAR of China. On the other hand,the Berlin case is largely due to the German ethno-cultural interpretation ofnation and the deep-rooted contestation between the European and Islamiccivilizations. It should be noted that the context in which the course of inte-gration is embedded is notfixed. The seemingly unproblematic integration ofearly Chinese immigrants in HongKong can be explained in the then specificcontext in which the Hong Kong identity has not yet fully developed and theinflux of immigrants contributed to the flourishing economy. On the otherhand, in Berlin’s case, for instance, German reunification largely reshapedthe socio-economic context on which the integration of immigrants relies.

Discrepancy between Policy and Reality

Both cases show that, as the course of integration is affected by variousfactors and the deep-rooted historical background, the relevance and effec-tiveness of integration policy and official involvement should not be exag-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

gerated. It is true that integration policy is effective in providing legal pro-tection to immigrants, as demonstrated by the enactment of the RDO inHong Kong, and facilitates formal integration, as demonstrated by thepassing of the integration law in Berlin. But integration policy is not veryeffective in resolving fundamental conflicts between cultures, claims overidentities and stigmatization of outsiders which are the root problems ofintegration. It is exemplified by the great discrepancy between Berlin’shighly tolerant official rhetoric and active integration regime and thebleak reality that conflict between Germans and non-Germans is stillsalient. Even though Hong Kong has just developed a more active inte-gration policy, it is unlikely that it can stamp out prevailing discriminationagainst Chinese immigrants and South Asian immigrants as it is embeddedin the complex historical background. While official engagement is essen-tial to the course of integration, its relevance should not be exaggerated.

Identity and Meaning of Integration

The examples of Berlin and Hong Kong imply that integration is an unset-tling process, as cleavages, which are constantly being eliminated andremade, intertwine the ongoing construction of overlapping and contrastingidentities in the receiving societies. It seems that Berlin provides a venue forthe making of a local identity which is more open and tolerant to non-nativesthan the closed notion of the German national identity. In contrast, the localidentity of Hongkongese is impeding the inclusion of immigrants into thesociety. It leads to the ultimate question of what integration means. Does itmean that South Asian immigrants who are not perceived as Hongkongesedo not identify themselves with the city, thus causing trouble to thesociety? Does the concentration of immigrants lead to the breakup ofsociety, as feared in Berlin? The city-level comparative study is not able toprovide absolute answers to these questions. It only reveals that the actualcourse of integration is a process of struggle marked by tolerance, indiffer-ence, assimilation, active inclusion, unwilling exclusion and disengagement.

Conclusion: Rejecting the Vision of Integration

This paper has re-examined the dominant conceptualization of integrationand its related research paradigm in Western academia through comparativestudy of the challenges of integration in Berlin and Hong Kong. It has chal-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

lenged the dominant national framework and demonstrated the importanceof city-level study. It has also questioned existing presumptions on inte-gration. It argues that the understanding of the course of integrationcannot be decoupled from the distinctive and changing context of thereceiving society, and given that integration is a complex process, the rel-evance and effectiveness of integration policy and official interventionshould not be exaggerated. The major aim of this paper is to arousefurther reflection on the whole integration paradigm. It does not supportthe progressive vision of integration which is based on the assumptionthat that integration is the precondition of society and it is possible torank society vertically from integration down to disintegration. Rejectingthe common pretence of offering practical solutions to the problem, thispaper has instead honestly revealed the unsettling nature of the issue.

References

Abbas, A. (1997).Hong Kong: Culture and the politics of disappearance. Hong Kong: Hong KongUniversity Press.

Abu-Laban, Y. (2002). Liberalism, multiculturalism and the problem of essentialism. CitizenshipStudies, 6(4), 459–482.

Alexander, M. (2004). Comparing local policies toward migrants: An analytical framework, atypology and preliminary survey results. In: R. Penninx, K. Kraal, M. Martiniello, & S.Vertovec (Eds.), Citizenship in European cities: Immigrants, local politics, and integrationpolicies (pp. 57–84). Aldershot & Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Alexander, M. (2007). Cities and labour immigration: Comparing policy responses in Amsterdam,Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Baber, H. E. (2008). The multicultural mystique: The liberal case against diversity. Amherst, NY:Prometheus Books.

Bauböck, R. (2003). Reinventing urban citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 7(2), 139–160.

Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Borkert, M., & Caponio, T. (2010). Introduction: The local dimension of migration policymaking.In: M. Borkert & T. Caponio (Eds.), The local dimension of migration policymaking(pp. 9–32). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Brady, J. S. (2004). Dangerous foreigners: The discourse of threat and the contours of inclusion andexclusion in Berlin’s public sphere. New German Critique, 92, 192–224.

Brenner, N. (1999). Globalisation as reterritorialisation: The re-scaling of urban governance in theEuropean Union. Urban Studies, 36(3), 431–451.

Brettell, C. B. (2003). Bringing the city back in: Cities as contexts for immigrant incorporation. In:N. Foner (Ed.), American arrivals: Anthropology engages the new immigration(pp. 163–196). Oxford: James Currey.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Broadhurs, R., Bacon-Shone, J., Bourhours, B., Lee, A. C. K., & Zhong, L. Y. (2010). Hong Kong,the United Nations International Crime Victim Survey: Final report of the 2006 Hong KongUNICVS. Hong Kong: Canberra.

Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Brubaker, R. (2001). The return of assimiliation? Changing perspectives on immgiration and itssequels in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4),531–548.

Castells, M., (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements inthe modern world. Basingstoke & New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chan, J. S. (2004). The evolution of immigration law and policies: 1842–2003 and beyond. In: J.Chan & B. Rwezaura (Eds.), Immigration law in Hong Kong: An interdisciplinary study(pp. 1–58). Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell Asia.

Chun, A. (1996). Discourses of identity in the changing spaces of public culture in Taiwan, HongKong and Singapore. Theory, Culture & Society, 13(1), 51–75.

Doomernik, J., Penninx, R., & van Amersfoort, H. (1997). A migration policy for the future:Possibilities and limitations. Brussels: Migration Policy Group.

Favell, A. (2001). Integration policy and integration research in Europe: A review and critique. In:T. A. Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), Citizenship today: Global perspectives and practices(pp. 349–399). Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Fennema, M., & Tillie, J. (2004). Do immigrant policies matter?: Ethnic civic communities andimmigrant policies in Amsterdam, Liege and Zurich. In: R. Penninx, K. Kraal, M.Martiniello, & S. Vertovec (Eds.), Citizenship in European cities: immigrants, localpolitics, and integration policies (pp. 85–106). Aldershot & Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Friedmann, J. (2002). The prospect of cities. Minneapolis & London: University of MinnesotaPress.

Friedmann, J., & Lehrer, U. A. (1997). Urban policy responses to foreign in-migration: The case ofFrankfurt-am-Main. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 61–78.

Gesemann, F. (2006). Multikulturalismus, Parallelgesllschaften oder lokale Integration? In: R.Robert & N. Konegen (Eds.), Globalisierung und Lokalisierung: Zur Neubestimmung desKommunalen in Deutschland (pp. 231–252). Münster: Waxmann Verlag.

Gesemann, F. (2009). Berlin: Einwanderungsstadt, under consturction? Von der Beauftragtenpolitikzur strategischen Steuerung. In: F. Gesemann & R. Roth (Eds.), Lokale Integrationspolitik inder Einwanderungsgesellschaft: Migration und Integration als Herausforderung vonKommunen (pp. 311–333). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Grillo, R. (2005). Backlash against diversity? Identity and cultural politics in European cities(working paper). Oxford: Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford.

Grillo, R. D. (1985). Ideologies and institutions in urban France: The representation of immigrants.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Habermas, J. (1997). A Berlin republic: Writings on Germany. Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress.

Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation: Political essays. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heitmeyer, W.., Müller, J., & Schröder, H. (1997). Verlockender Fundamentalismus: TürkischeJugendliche in Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Heung, V. (2006). Recognizing the emotional and behavioral needs of ethnic minority students inHong Kong. Preventing School Failure, 50(2), 29–36.

Hollifield, J. F. (2008). The politics of international migration: How can we “bring the state backin”? In: C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory: Talking acrossdisciplines (pp. 137–186). New York: Routledge.

Ireland, P. (1994). The policy challenge of ethnic diversity: Immigrant politics in France andSwitzerland. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ireland, P. (2007, May). Immigration, integration, and everyday life in Europe’s neighborhoods,Draft paper prepared for presentation at the Workshop “Everyday Life in World Politicsand Economics”, Centre for International Studies, LSE, London.

Jacques, M. (2003, September 20). The global hierarchy of race. The Guardian. Retrieved fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/20/race.uk

Jonker, G. (2005). The Mevlana Mosque in Berlin-Kreuzberg: An unsolved conflict. Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies, 31(6), 1067–1081.

Joppke, C. (Ed.). (1998). Challenge to the nation-state: Immigration in Western Europe and theUnited States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keith, M. (2005). After the cosmopolitan? Multicultural cities and the future of racism. Lonndon &New York, NY: Routledge.

Kesteloot, C., &Meert, H. (2000). Segregation and economic integration of immigrants in Brussels.In: S. Body-Gendrot & M. Martiniello (Eds.),Minorities in European cities: The dynamics ofsocial integration and social exclusion at the neighborhood level (pp. 54–74). Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Kleff, S., & Seidel, E. (2009). Stadt der Vielfalt: Das Entstehen des neuen Berlin durch Migration.Berlin: Der Beauftragte des Berliner Senats für Integration und Migration.

Ku, A. S., (2004). Immigration policies, discourses, and the politics of local belonging in HongKong (1950–1980). Modern China, 30(3), 326–360.

Ku, A. S., & Pun, N. (2004). Remaking citizenship in Hong Kong: Community, nation, and theglobal city. London: Routledge.

Ku, H. B. (2006). Body, dress and cultural exclusion: Experiences of Pakistani women in “global”Hong Kong. Asian Ethnicity, 7(3), 286–302.

Kymlicka, W. (2005). Models of multicultural citizenship: Comparing Asia and the West. In: S.-h.Tan (Ed.), Challenging citizenship: Group membership and cultural identity in a global age(pp. 110–136). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lam, K.-C., & Liu, P.-W. (1998). Immigration, population heterogeneity, and earnings inequality inHong Kong. Contemporary Economic Policy, 16(3), 265–276.

LandesBank Berlin. (2011). Berlin aktuell: Aufschwung in Berlin — wo sind die Arbeitsplätze?Berlin: Landesbank Berlin AG.

Lau, K.-l. A. (2009). Immigration and nationality anomalies of Hong Kong 1842–1997: TheChinatown in China. Hong Kong: IED Office, School of Business, Hong Kong BaptistUniversity.

Lau, S.-k. (1982). Society and politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Law, K.-y., & Lee, K.-m. (2006). Citizenship, economy and social exclusion of Mainland Chineseimmigrants in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 36(2), 217–242.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/20/race.uk

Lee, W. O. (2004). Concepts and issues of Asian citizenship: Spirituality, harmony andindividuality. In: W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy, & G. P. Fairbrother (Eds.),Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 277–288). HongKong: Kluwer Academic.

Leggewie, C. (1990). Multi Kulti: Spielregeln fur die Vielvoïkerrepublik. Berlin: Rotbuch.

Leung, H.-C. (2004). Politics of incorporation and exclusion: Immigration and citizenship issues.In: A. S. Ku & N. Pun (Eds.), Remaking citizenship in Hong Kong: Community, nation,and the global city (pp. 97–114). London & New York: Routledge.

Loper, K. (2004). Race and equality: A study of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong’s education system:Project report and analysis. Occasional paper. Hong Kong: Centre for Comparative andPublic Law.

Mahnig, H. (2004). The politics of minority–majority relations: How immigrant policies developedin Paris, Berlin and Zurich. In: R. Penninx, K. Kraal, M. Martiniello, & S. Vertovec (Eds.),Citizenship in European cities: Immigrants, local politics, and integration policies(pp. 17–38). Aldershot & Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Massey, D. (2007). World city. Cambridge & Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Meyer, T. (2002). Identitatspolitik: Vom Missbrauch kultureller Unterschiede. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.

Meyers, E. (2000). Theories of international immigration policy — A comparative analysis.International Migration Review, 34(4), 1245–1282.

Money, J. (1999). Fences and neighbors: The political geography of immigration control. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.

Mushaben, J. M. (2006). Thinking globally, integrating locally: Gender, entrepreneurship and urbancitizenship in Germany. Citizenship Studies, 10(2), 203–227.

Neymarc, K. (1998). Immigrants, integration and cities: A brief review of the recent literature. InOECD. Immigrants, integration and cities: Exploring the links. Paris: OECD.

Oberndörfer, D. (2001). Integration der Ausländer in den demokratischen Verfassungsstaa: Zieleund Aufgaben. In: K. J. Bade (Ed.), Integration und Illegalitat in Deutschland (pp. 11–30).Osnabruck: Institut fur Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien, UniversitatOsnabruck.

Palmowski, J. (2008). In search of the German nation: Citizenship and the challenge of integration.Citizenship Studies, 12(6), 547–563.

Penninx, R., Kraal, K., Martiniello, M., & Vertovec, S. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction: European citiesand their new residents. Citizenship in European cities: Immigrants, local politics, andintegration policies (pp. 1–16). Aldershot & Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Piening, G., & Germershausen, A. (2007). Paradigm shift: The experience of Berlin’s commissionerfor integration and migration. In: W. J. V. Neill & H.-U. Schwedler (Eds.), Migration andcultural inclusion in the European city (pp. 159–166). Basingstoke & New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportunities.International Migration Review, 31(4), 799–825.

Portes, A. (2000). Immigration and the metropolis: Reflections on urban history. Journal ofInternational Migration and Integration, 1(2), 153–175.

Rex, J., & Samad, Y. (1996). Multiculturalism and political integration in Birmingham andBradford. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 11–31.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.

Sassen, S. (1996). Whose city is it? Globalization and the formation of new claims. Public Culture,8(2), 205–223.

Sautman, B. (2004). Hong Kong as a semi-ethnocracy: “Race”, migration and citizenship in aglobalized region. In: A. S. Ku & N. Pun (Eds.), Remaking citizenship in Hong Kong:Community, nation, and the global city (pp. 115–138). London & New York: Routledge.

Silver, H. (2006). Introduction: Soical integration in the “new” Berlin.German Politics and Society,24(4), 1–48.

Skocpol, T., & Somers, M. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry.Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(2), 174–197.

Soysal, L. (2001). Diversity of experience, experience of diversity: Turkish migrant youth culture inBerlin. Cultural Dynamics, 13(1), 5–28.

Stratenschulte, E. D. (2008). Mission accomplished? Berlin scoiety and the challenge ofreunification. In: J. A. Williams (Ed.), Berlin since the wall’s end: Shaping society andmemory in the German metropolis since 1989 (pp. 10–32). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Suen, W. (1994). Estimating the effects of immigration in one city. Hong Kong: School ofEconomics and Finance, The University of Hong Kong.

Tibi, B. (1998). Europa ohne Identität?: Leitkultur oder Wertebeliebigkeit. Berlin: Siedler.

Vermeulen, H. (1997). Immigrant policy for a multicultural society: A comparative study ofintegration, language and religious policy in five Western European countries. Brussels:Migration Policy Group.

Vertovec, S. (1996). Berlin multikulti: Germany, “foreigners”, and “world-openness”. NewCommunity, 22(3), 381–399.

Von Dirke, S. (1994). Multikulti: The German debate on multiculturalism. German Studies Review,17(3), 513–536.

Weiss, A. M. (1991). South Asian Muslims in Hong Kong: Creation of a “local boy” identity.Modern Asia Studies, 25(3), 417–453.

Wiesbrock, A. (2009). Discrimination instead of integration? Integration requirements forimmigrants in Denmark and Germany. In: E. Guild, K. Groenendijk, & S. Carrera (Eds.),Illiberal liberal states: Immigration, citizenship, and integration in the EU (pp. 299–314).Farnham & Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Wilson, D. (1990). Hong Kong! Hong Kong! London: Unwin Hyman.

About the Author

Karin Ling-fung CHAU received her MPhil degree in European Studiesfrom the University of Hong Kong in 2012. She is now the ProgrammeAdministrator of the Global Creative Industries Programme and a TeachingAssistant at the School of Modern Languages and Cultures, the Universityof Hong Kong. Her research interests lie in the comparative study of immi-gration and integration regimes, creative cities, and politics of identity andcultural policy in Hong Kong.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

218.

102.

91.7

2] a

t 02:

48 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Reconceptualizing Integration in Cities of Immigration: A Comparative Study of Berlin and Hong Kong

Documents

Transcript of Reconceptualizing Integration in Cities of Immigration: A Comparative Study of Berlin and Hong Kong