Integration Policy at a Regional Level in Germany

In the period between 1987 and 2001, Germany took in more immigrants in absolute terms than the classic immigration countries of Australia and Canada put together (cf. Bade 2001). However, for political reasons the integration of immigrants in Germany was no straight-forward matter. Not until the year 1991 was a paradigm shift registered, when the CDU, which together with the FDP made up the German Federal Government, deleted the wording “Deutschland ist kein Einwanderungsland” (Germany is not a country of immigration) from the Dresden manifesto (cf. Bade 2001). Even so, it took a further 14 years before, in 2005, the Aliens Act was superseded by the Residence Act (better known as the “Immigration Law”) and for the first time, the aim of promoting integration was anchored in and regulated by law. Since 2007 there has been a comprehensive battery of measures at the federal level aimed at integrating immigrants and their descendants: the “National Integration Plan”, issued by the Federal Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration (Die Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration 2007).

Since just under one fifth of the foreign population in Germany lives in one of the country’s six biggest cities, and since there is tremendous leeway at city level in terms of implementing the regulations contained in the National Integration Plan, the present policy brief examines and describes the various concepts and measures for integrating foreign citizens in Germany’s six biggest cities: Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt and Stuttgart.

Some cities and local authorities recognised the need to integrate foreign citizens early on and so developed their own plans for integration to suit their region’s particular requirements. Stuttgart has assumed a pioneering role in this regard, having produced and implemented its own overall concept for the integration and participation of immigrants and their children as early as 2001.

But why are regionally adjusted integration concepts necessary? What role is played by the demographic and economic situation of the various regions? And to what extent has there already been successful integration in the labour market?
It is not possible at this stage to evaluate the measures for urban integration since they have only recently been adopted. Rather, it is the aim of this dossier to underline the need for plans for urban integration by examining the situation in each region, and to explore the opportunities, and also the difficulties, presented by scientifically-based evaluation. The policy brief also presents some examples of measures for promoting integration. First, however, it is necessary to explain what exactly is meant by integration.

How do we define integration?
When speaking of integration, it is important to bear in mind that there are numerous different concepts of integration. In general, however, we tend to differentiate between system integration and social integration. Whereas the former denotes the cohesion of a system (e.g. of a society) as a whole, social integration indicates the inclusion of individual actors in a system. Typically we mean social integration when speaking of the integration of migrants. In this context we distinguish between a further four dimensions (cf. Esser 2000):

    • Culturation (also: socialisation) as a process of transmitting knowledge. It is necessary for successfully interacting in society, e.g. the acquisition of a language and cultural standards.
    • Placement refers to the acquisition of positions in a society, e.g. in the educational or economic system, but also as a citizen. The process of placement is associated with the acquisition of rights and with it the opportunity to gain socially relevant capital.1
    • Interaction denotes the formation of interethnic networks and relations. This includes friendships, marriage relations, membership in associations or involvement in social groups generally, and with that the opportunity to gain social and cultural capital.
    • Identification indicates the individual’s identification with a given society. The person considers him/herself part of a whole. Identification occurs on both a cognitive and emotional level.

The different dimensions of integration are not, of course, independent of one another. Placement, for example, assumes a certain degree of culturation (especially language acquisition). And, building on this, firstly interaction and then identification with a society become possible. If a person is fully integrated in all four dimensions we speak of assimilation, whereby the individual’s cultural autonomy and, therefore, cultural diversity may also be lost. If, however, we regard immigration as an opportunity to accept different cultures on equal terms and to interact (multiculturalism)2, then cultural autonomy must be retained. The cultural and social integration relations of people to their practices, symbols and objects do not supplant or mutually exclude one another, but rather amplify the possibilities for people to live together (cf. Pries 2005).

We can therefore define social integration as the inclusion and acceptance of migrants in institutions, networks and positions in a society. The process of integration should be understood as an interactive dialectic social process between immigrants and the receiving society that spans generations. A pool of shared values and standards (e.g. the rule of law) is stressed as the basis for a multicultural coexistence.

Language acquisition (culturation) is regarded as the key to social integration in the receiving country and, building on that, the structural assimilation of national groups within the education system and labour market (placement). Placement in society is so central because it facilitates participation in social events. For, in addition to the opportunity to acquire economic capital and achieve recognition, successful placement gives the position-holder the feeling of being needed and part of society.

The demographic situation in the cities

Population structures and economic conditions in the six biggest German cities vary greatly. Table 1 illustrates the marked differences in the size of population between the cities.

The largest city, Berlin, has more than five times as many inhabitants as Stuttgart and almost twice as many as the second biggest city, Hamburg. With regard to the proportion of foreigners3 in the population there are also major differences. In this sense Stuttgart and Munich, each with a foreign population of almost 25%, are well in the lead. Surprisingly, the two largest cities in terms of population, Hamburg and Berlin, have a relatively low percentage of foreigners. Among other reasons, this can be explained by the different role played by both cities during the time of the influx of Gastarbeiter (guest workers).  For example,in contrast to Hamburg and Berlin, Stuttgart during the 1950s recorded a strong inflow of workers from southern European countries needed for the prospering, labour-intensive industrial goods and automobile production sectors. One consequence of this was that the percentage of foreigners in the Stuttgart region in the 1960s was already about 11% and therefore significantly higher than the Federal average (cf. Plahuta 2007).

If we consider what is currently happening in terms of immigration, there appears to have been a reversal of trends in recent years with regard to the distribution of immigration streams. Of all the cities between the years 2000 and 2005, Berlin exhibits the highest net immigration figures from abroad both in absolute terms and in relation to the population. Whereas the balance of foreigners migrating to or out of Cologne and Frankfurt is slightly negative or zero, more foreigners migrated to Hamburg, Munich and Stuttgart than returned abroad. From the point of view of integration policy, it is particularly interesting to observe the number of people moving in an inward direction, as, generally speaking, new immigrants arrive in Germany with inadequate knowledge of the language and country and are in greater need of integration. At this point the picture changes, for, while it is true that in absolute terms Berlin boasts the greatest number of immigrants, Stuttgart, Frankfurt and Munich have the highest influxes of immigrants in proportion to the size of population. 

Data shows, moreover, that foreigners in all cities are disproportionately strongly represented in the under 30s age group. This can be explained, among other reasons, by the fact that individual mobility and the inclination to move from one country to another is strongest in a person’s earlier years than later on. In the case of Germany there is the added factor that foreign women have more children on average than German women (cf. Statistisches Bundesamt 2006), although certainly the introduction of the new Law on Citizenship in the year 2000 led to an increasing proportion of children of foreign parents receiving German citizenship, and these children are therefore no longer registered as foreigners (cf. Steinhardt 2007b). However, with regard to the age structure of the foreign population, regional differences are also apparent. Thus Munich has the highest proportion of foreigners in the youngest age group (under 30 years), but in relation to the size of its total foreign population, Frankfurt has the most foreigners under 30.

The influence of economic conditions

In addition to the demographic differences described above, the cities also demonstrate very different economic circumstances. These determine a city’s potential for economic integration in two ways. Firstly the economic conditions have an impact on the supply of foreign workers by influencing immigration both quantitatively and qualitatively. Thus, for example, when choosing a location, labour migrants usually prefer regions with high salaries and low unemployment. Secondly, the economic situation in a region influences the demand for foreign workers. The more prosperous and labour intensive the economy of a region is, the greater the demand for foreign workers (cf. Steinhardt 2007a).

For this reason, on the basis of the three selected economic indicators shown in Table 2, it is possible to illustrate the differing economic situation in the six biggest German cities.

Labour productivity (GDP per person in gainful employment) is the central indicator for economic performance. It is apparent here that Frankfurt and Hamburg, as well as Munich and Stuttgart, are on similar levels, with the first two being ahead. Berlin and Cologne are clearly falling behind here, which in the case of Berlin can be explained by the structural change subsequent to reunification. It is clear, furthermore, that the cities are affected to differing degrees by unemployment. Whereas unemployment in Stuttgart and Munich at about 9% is significantly below the Federal average (12%), in Berlin 1/5 of the entire workforce is registered as unemployed. Moreover, analyses show that in all of the cities as many as about 50% out of those employed work in knowledge-intensive sectors. Certainly the cities differ in these sectors, in some cases considerably, with regard to the extent of occupation in industry and services. Thus Stuttgart and Munich demonstrate a disproportionately high number of people in knowledge-intensive industry, whereas this field plays only a marginal role in Berlin and Hamburg. By contrast, in the latter cities specialisation in high quality services is already well advanced. Overall it appears that the six biggest German cities demonstrate strong demographic and economic differences, which in turn have an impact on the integration of foreigners in the labour market.

On the integration of foreigners in the labour market

The placement of foreigners in the labour markets of each respective city is illustrated below by means of selected indicators.

If we compare the percentages of foreign workers in the labour markets of each city, enormous differences become apparent. Just 8% of persons in gainful employment in Hamburg and Berlin are foreign, whereas in Frankfurt, Munich and Stuttgart the percentages are almost double that. Naturally, this indicator is influenced by the proportion of the population comprising foreigners, respectively, and is intended primarily as an illustration of the importance of foreign workers in the cities. What is more meaningful, however, is the rate of unemployment when Germans and foreigners are regarded separately. It is worth comparing two aspects of this. Firstly, there are big differences between the cities in the level of unemployment independent of nationality. Proportionally, Berlin has approximately two and a half times as many unemployed German and foreign persons as Munich and Stuttgart. Secondly, comparison within the individual cities shows that, with the exception of Frankfurt,  the percentage of unemployed foreigners is twice that of unemployed Germans.

When comparing what is happening within individual cities, however, we need to examine the stated differences in the levels of unemployment. Thus, for example, the proportion of unemployed foreigners in Munich and Stuttgart is lower (16% each) than that of Germans in Berlin (18%). It is also interesting to compare Frankfurt and Hamburg, as they both show similar figures for the unemployed German population (approx. 10%), yet demonstrate large differences for foreigners: there are six percent fewer unemployed foreigners in Frankfurt than in Hamburg (19% v. 25%). When the situation generally in the labour market is considered, therefore, foreigners are better placed in Frankfurt than in other cities.

Average wage (per day) serves as a further informative indicator for describing the integration of foreigners in the labour market when we differentiate between German and foreign employees. The proportion of employees with secondary or tertiary education provides additional information about the qualifications of employed foreigners.

With regard to average wage too, employed foreigners fare worse than Germans. Once again there are significant differences between the cities, which can be explained, above all, by the differing regional economic strength. Employees in Berlin earn the least, on average, regardless of nationality. As might be expected, salary levels are highest in Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Munich. In Stuttgart and Munich the relative wage gap between foreign and German employees is just 24% and 25% respectively, whereas in the other cities it is just under 30%.4 Analyses indicate, therefore, that the potential for the integration of foreign workers is highest in Frankfurt, Munich and Stuttgart.

What are the reasons for the poorer placement?
At the root of the differing placement levels on the labour market is, above all, the unequal endowment with human capital. If we compare the proportion of employed persons with secondary education (vocational training) and tertiary education (university and college degree), we can discern big differences between German and foreign employees. Nearly twice as many German employees as foreign employees have received secondary or tertiary education. By implication, it could be construed that foreign employees are not qualified, but this is not necessarily so. The differences also derive in part from the migration-related devaluation of human capital. One of the problems here is that there is no standard nationwide regulation in Germany for the recognition of educational qualifications gained abroad. This is particularly important in Germany because access to skilled jobs is channelled especially through certified evidence of training and education (cf. Shavit and Müller 1998).

Comparison of educational variables has shown that foreign employees are disproportionately often employed as unskilled workers. It can, however, be assumed that a certain proportion will find themselves in this category due to the non-recognition of qualifications gained abroad. Consequently, it is apparent that some of the potential of foreign workforces goes unused. One starting point for political measures, therefore, is to closely scrutinise the practice for recognising foreign academic qualifications. It would be possible here to follow Denmark's example and create a legal foundation for recognition procedures in all professional areas. Advice offered to immigrants concerning the possibilities of obtaining recognition for qualifications gained abroad could also be extended (cf. Englmann and Müller 2007). Furthermore, it is necessary to promote more strongly the (further) qualification of foreign employees by means of targeted measures.

We can conclude that the position of foreign employees in urban labour markets is significantly poorer and that this can be discerned in both the rate of unemployment and in the average wage. In many cases this can be attributed to a lower level of qualification. As a consequence, it is questionable whether the integration of foreign employees in the labour market is sustainable in the long term, since low-skilled work forces are strongly dependent on economic influences and in times of economic difficulties are the first to be pushed out of the labour market. In addition, the transferal of labour-intensive production processes in the course of globalisation, is such that, in all probability, the proportion of jobs available for the low-skilled will diminish still further.

Education and qualifications increase chances in the labour market
Since most of the disadvantages described above can be explained primarily by a lower endowment of foreigners with human capital (cf. Granato and Kalter 2001; Plahuta 2007) and since the necessity for measures with regard to qualification has been elucidated, the question now arises as to whether the disadvantages in the labour market disappear if a person has successfully undergone training in Germany. The opportunities for employment subsequent to vocational training are of particular importance in this regard, for if disadvantages are already suffered in the transition process, then it is difficult for a person to make up for them during the course of their life (cf. Dietrich and Abraham 2005).

Figure 1 illustrates the probability of labour market integration, or more exactly the probability of finding employment after completing dual vocational training in Germany. The average rate of integration for West Germany is 71% for all trainees and 66% for all foreign trainees. With the exception of Berlin and Hamburg which have a dramatically low rate of integration for foreign trainees (37% and 59%), the employment situation in the observed cities for all foreign trainees is better than the national average and is, in addition, almost as good as that for the German group. It can thus be concluded that education and qualifications increase the possibility of integration in the labour market and significantly reduce disadvantages, and that the promotion of education and qualification must therefore be one of the central concerns of a meaningful integration policy. In order to take different economic circumstances into account, measures to promote integration must additionally be tailored towards regional conditions. Despite regulations at a national and state level (e.g. language courses and the education system respectively), there is considerable scope for urban integration measures.

Regional integration policy: the case in Stuttgart

As the observations in the above section have demonstrated, there are considerable differences between the major German cities concerning the integration of foreigners in the labour market. The need for region-specific approaches to integration policy deriving from this has, meanwhile, been recognised by just about all major German cities and has led to the development of different integration concepts. The city of Stuttgart has taken on a pioneering role in this respect, having already developed and implemented its own overall concept for immigrant integration and participation as early as the year 2001 (cf. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart 2001). The principles and aims of the regional integration policy of the state capital of Baden-Württemberg were determined in the so-called “Pact for Integration”, whereby suggestions and recommendations from the academic community were explicitly taken into consideration.

The declared aims of Stuttgart’s integration policy since 2001 are to promote participation and equality of opportunity for people of different origins, to use cultural diversity to extend the personal and professional competence of all members of the international urban society and to promote peaceful coexistence among all groups of the population. These action goals are pursued by means of a series of communal projects and measures to promote integration, wherein 12 fields of action have been defined:

    • Language support for newly arrived and established migrants
    • Language and education support in pre-school education
    • Equal opportunities in schools and education
    • Integration in the workplace
    • Putting integration policies at the heart of city institutions
    • Supporting integration and participation in all areas of the city
    • Living and neighbourship in the international city
    • Intercultural and international orientation of culture, economy and science
    • Safety
    • Interreligious dialogue
    • Political participation
    • Public relations.

If we single out as an example the field of action “putting integration policies at the heart of city institutions”, then by this we understand an increase in the proportion of employed persons with a migration background. The hope from this is to build up a greater basis of trust to the benefit of both sides. The subject of integration in the workplace includes support for setting up independent businesses, improvement in the training situation and targeted measures for providing qualifications.

The concept has been consciously planned as a flexible instrument, which is to be adjusted to current requirements by means of regular evaluation and through an exchange of ideas with all the actors involved. Thus the concepts inherent in the “Pact for Integration” have been continually developed over the course of the past few years (cf. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart 2007). Stuttgart’s integration concept enjoys high international recognition and in 2005 Stuttgart was awarded prizes for its integration policy, among other accolades, by the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Bertelsmann Foundation.

On the initiative of the city of Stuttgart, moreover, on 2 May 2006 the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe (CLRAE), the state capital Stuttgart and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions founded the European city network “Cities for Local Integration Policies for Migrants” (CLIP). The network aims to enable countries to compare their local integration policies, to work on examples of best practice and put forward policy recommendations (cf. CLIP 2007).

Regional integration measures

Over the course of the past few years, all the cities studied in this report, with the exception of Cologne, have developed and implemented their own integration concept tailored to the specific regional challenges and requirements of each city (cf. Der Beauftragte des Berliner Senats für Integration und Migration 2005; Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg 2007; Landeshauptstadt München 2006; Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart 2001; Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart 2007¸ Stadt Frankfurt am Main 2005). The individual concepts differ both in terms of the prioritisation of the content and measures to be executed and in terms of their focus on particular target groups. In addition there are fine distinctions in the understanding of integration on which the concepts are based, which can also be interpreted as a reflection of the different political majorities. For all their differences, the concepts share their emphasis on the necessity of region-specific approaches, the importance of language and education, their understanding of labour market participation as a central precondition for integration, and their desire to unlock the potential of cultural diversity. This last point in particular clearly shows a turning away from traditional “Ausländerpolitik” or immigration policy, which perceives immigration in terms of the recruitment of guest workers who served as a buffer against the vagaries of the economic cycle and who were subject to the principle of rotation and therefore not regarded as long-term members of the receiving society. Current policy attempts to focus on and foster the opportunities and potential of the international urban society (cf. Korte 1987).6

The capacity of cities to influence education and the labour market is subject to certain limitations due to the given distribution of competence between the Federal Government, the states and the local authorities. Nonetheless, German cities and local authorities have a range of opportunities to influence education and access to the labour market. Table 5 shows examples of some central measures with whose aid the integration of immigrants and their children can be targeted and improved and which have already been adopted in the above-mentioned urban integration concepts. The measures focus in this regard on supporting language and education as well as improving access to the labour market. Since in particular the transition from school to a profession is an important and formative phase for the later professional career, efforts are being made in the cities towards achieving greater cooperation between schools, companies and the chambers of trade, industry and commerce.

Evaluation of integration policy

The transparency concerning the integration policy’s objectives and measures brought about by publicising the concepts is one advantage that should not be underestimated. By providing full information about projects, political decision-makers are open to public discourse and can, in principle, be judged on the implementation of their concepts. This assumes the existence of indicators that would allow the effect of the programs and measures to be assessed once they have been carried out. Moreover, if we wish to compare the success of integration policy across regional borders, we also need a standardised indicator system in which uniform data is compiled for all cities and states. Over the course of recent years some initial indicator systems have been developed to permit comparative evaluation of the integration policies of cities and states. Since 2004, for example, the Migrant Policy Index (MIPEX) has compared and evaluated the integration policy of EU member states.7 The MIPEX is what is known as a “composite indicator”8 and is comprised of 140 partial indicators in the following six areas: political participation, anti-discrimination, access to the labour market, citizenship, family reunification and the right of residence. The project has been promoted since 2006 by the European Commission, as it makes statements as to how close the EU countries are to best practice guidelines possible.

Whereas MIPEX relates exclusively to national integration policies, in 2005 the Municipal Association for Administration Management [Kommunale Gemeinschaftsstelle für Verwaltungsmanagement (KGst)], in cooperation with the commissioners for integration of German cities, created a set of indicators by means of which it is possible to monitor local integration (cf. KGst 2006). This set of indicators includes the following fields of action: legal integration, education, work and economy, social security, housing, language, health, social integration, social and political participation, and security. The CLIP network  does not currently have its own indicator system to facilitate an objective comparison of regional approaches to integration policy, but rather pursues a qualitative approach (cf. CLIP 2007). However, there are plans to develop and implement a joint indicator system by mid 2009.9 The future success of local integration policy will depend, among other things, on the successful development of meaningful indicators with which it is possible to evaluate policy measures. This should extend beyond representation of the status quo and enable an impact analysis as well as a comparison of regional integration policy measures.

Outlook

Since the necessity for a targeted, catch-up integration policy has been recognised by all political decision-makers, a battery of integration policy measures and initiatives has been developed and implemented at the Federal Government level over the course of recent years. A prominent example of this is the National Integration Plan, which was adopted in 2007 and which represents an overall national concept for integrating foreigners and people with a migration background living in the country. Currently an additional outcome of the open discourse on the subject of integration is the realisation that, due to the regional economic and demographic disparities in Germany, integration policy must be on as small a scale as possible  Thus the National Integration Plan stresses that integration occurs within the immediate locality. For this reason, regional approaches are gaining increasing importance in Germany’s integration policy, whereby participation in the labour market is regarded as a central precondition to integration. Moreover, cultural diversity is seen as potential for society and the economy, which can be unfolded by means of targeted initiatives, and conditions for the good of all.

The National Integration Plan provides that local authorities and administrative institutions should work together with migrants to produce a model to guarantee clear political commitment and responsibility. Anchored in this, there must be a number of targets for integration policy that also makes it possible to scrutinise its implementation. Those who bear responsibility for these matters in local government are entirely aware of their obligation, with the result that nearly all of the German municipalities that have been investigated have their own regional integration concepts. A central element of all the concepts is the promotion of education and qualifications for the foreign population and people with a migration background. In this regard, Stuttgart can certainly be judged as playing a leading role.

The future success of regional integration policy will depend on how far the existing concepts are implemented and become a lasting component of urban education and labour market policy. In order to guarantee that this does not remain merely a declaration of intent and that effective measures will be implemented efficiently, constant evaluation of integration policy will be necessary. The derivation of examples of best practice is indeed a start; however, the development and implementation of a meaningful indicator system should take priority. The social and economic integration of foreigners and people with a migration background is one of the greatest challenges facing German society; it should not be influenced by the events of the moment but must be advanced purposefully and on a long-term basis. Achieving this requires openness and goodwill both on the part of the immigrant and on the part of the receiving society.

Endnotes

  1. In general, a distinction is made between economic, cultural and social capital (cf. Bourdieu 1983). The term “capitals” additionally implies the possibility of using such capital to bring about  profit. Additionally, Borjas (1992) introduces ethnic capital since, according to him, opportunities for integration also depend on the quality of the ethnic environment.
  2. A critical discourse on multiculturalism which takes the Netherlands as an example can be found in policy brief No. 1 (cf. Michalowski 2005).
  3. Since both Federal Statistical Office statistics and the IAB Employment Sample only permit differentiation between Germans and foreigners, defined as persons with foreign citizenship, these terms are retained in the present policy brief. The term immigrant, on the other hand, implies personal experience of migration that cannot be identified by means of an individual's citizenship.
  4. The relative wage gap is measured in the form of the salary difference as a percentage of the wage of employed German workers.
  5. For information on the integration of immigrants in the labour market after completing vocational training, reference is made to Haas and Damelang (2007).
  6. For the importance of cultural diversity for the economic development of German cities, reference is made to Damelang, Steinhardt and Stiller (2007).
  7. Whereas in the pilot version of MIPEX 2004 the 15 EU member states were evaluated, the current survey from the year 2006 comprises 25 EU member states plus Switzerland, Norway and Canada. Romania and Bulgaria have not as yet been considered in the survey (cf. MIPEX 2006).
  8. Composite indicators are frequently used in the EU as they permit simple presentation of complex data and can be used to create rankings.
  9. According to a statement made by Hubert Krieger, Research Manager of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND).


About the Authors
Andreas Damelang is a reseacher and doctoral student at the Institute for Employment Reseach (IAB) in Nuremberg.

Max Steinhardt is a researcher and doctoral student at the Hamburg Institute of Intenational Economics (HWWI) and at the Centro Studi Luca D’Agliano in Milan (since May 2008).

 

References and Further Reading

    • Bade, K.J. (2001): Ausländer- und Asylpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Grundprobleme und Entwicklungslinien. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Electronic Edition, Bonn.
    • Bourdieu, P. (1983): „Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital.“ In: R. Kreckel (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheiten. Göttingen: 183 - 198.
    • Borjas, G. J. (1992): “Ethnic Capital and Intergenerational Mobility.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (1): 123 – 150.
    • CLIP (2007): Cities for local Integration Policy, Local integration policies for migrants in Europe. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
    •  Damelang, A., Steinhardt, M. and Stiller, S. (2007): “Europe´s Diverse Labour Force: The Case of German Cities”. EURODIV Paper 49/2007.
    • Der Beauftragte des Berliner Senats für Integration und Migration (2005): Berliner Beiträge zur Integration und Migration, Vielfalt fördern –  Zusammenhalt stärken. Das am 23.08.2005 vom Senat beschlossene Integrationskonzept für Berlin. Abgeordnetenhaus Berlin, Drucksache 15/4208 of 23. August 2005.
    •  Die Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration (2007): Der Nationale Integrations-plan. Neue Wege – Neue Chancen.
    • Dietrich, H. and Abraham, M. (2005): „Eintritt in den Arbeitsmarkt.“ In: M. Abraham and T. Hinz (Eds.), Arbeitsmarktsoziologie. Probleme, Theorien, empirische Befunde. Wiesbaden: 69 – 98.
    • Englmann, B. and Müller, M. (2007): Brain Waste – Die Anerkennung von ausländischen Qualifikationen in Deutsch-land. Tür an Tür Integrationsprojekte, Augsburg.
    • Esser, H. (2000): Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 2: Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.
    • Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (2007): Hamburger Handlungskonzept zur Integration von Zuwanderern. Behörde für Soziales, Familie, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz.
    • Granato, N. and Kalter, F. (2001): „Die Persistenz ethnischer Ungleichheit auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt. Diskriminierung oder Unterinvestition in Humankapital?“ Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 53: 497 – 520.
    • Haas, A. and Damelang, A. (2007): “Labour market entry of migrants in Germany – Does cultural diversity matter?” IAB Discussion Paper 18/2007.
    • KGst (2006): ”Integrationsmonitoring”. Materialien Nr.2/2006, Köln.
    • Korte, H. (1987): Eine Gesellschaft im Aufbruch. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in den sechziger Jahren. Frankfurt a. M.
    • Landeshauptstadt München (2006): Grundsätze und Strukturen der Integrationspolitik der Landeshauptstadt München. Stelle für interkulturelle Arbeit, Sozialreferat.
    • Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart (2001): Ein Bündnis für Integration. Grundlagen einer Integrationspolitik in der Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart. Staatsabteilung für Integrationspolitik.
    • Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart (2007): Stuttgarter Bündnis für Integration. Weiterentwicklung 2007. Staatsabteilung für Integrationspolitik.
    • Michalowski, I. (2005): “What Is The Dutch Integration Model, And Has It Failed?” Focus Migration Policy Brief No. 1.
    • MIPEX (2006): Migrant Integration Policy Index.
    • Plahuta, S. (2007): Die Integration von Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund in städtische Arbeitsmärkte – dargestellt am Beispiel der Stadt Stuttgart. In: Wirtschaftsgeographie Bd. 42, Dissertation. Münster.
    • Pries, L. (2005): „Arbeitsmigration und Inkorporationsmuster in Europa.“ In: L. Pries (Ed.), Zwischen den Welten und amtlichen Zuschreibungen. Essen: 15 – 43.
    • Shavit, Y. and Müller, W. (Eds.): From School to Work. A Comparative Study of Educational Qualification and Occupational Destinations. Oxford.
    • Stadt Frankfurt am Main (2005): Integrationsbericht 2005. Förderung von Integrationsmaßnahmen und Ausländervereinen durch die Stadt Frankfurt am Main.
    • Statistisches Bundesamt (2006): „Natürliche Bevölkerungsbewegung“. Fachserie 1 Reihe 1.1 2004.
    • Steinhardt, M. (2007a): „Die Steuerung der Arbeitsmigration im Zuwanderungsgesetz – eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme aus ökonomischer Sicht.“ HWWI Policy Paper 3-2. Hamburgisches WeltWirtschaftsInstitut (HWWI).
    • Steinhardt, M. (2007b): „Aktuelle Trends der Einbürgerungen in Deutschland.“ Wirtschaftsdienst (87) 8: 544-549.
Migration Research Group
Netzwerk Migration in Europa e.V.
bpb - Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung