The typology of Entzinger

Entzinger (2000; 2003), on the other hand, proposes an analytical approach that focuses primarily on public ideology, on the basis of which integration policies are devised. In this context, Entzinger raises two questions: how public authorities define the ideal result of the integration process and which are the useful tools to achieve the desired results. There are two key dimensions in Entzinger’s analytical approach:

1. Integration is a multi-dimensional process, which takes place in different sectors of society. The most important sectors are: the legal-political, the socio-economic and the cultural sector.

2. The second dimension refers to the way that a host society and its public authorities view immigrants. The question is whether the host society considers them members of a specific community with certain characteristics different from those of the native population, or whether it considers them individuals of a different background who ought, sooner or later, to become fully integrated in the society of the host country.

The two dimensions produce six combinations. These combinations reflect six possible outcomes of the integration process, as well as six different purposes of the integration policies as listed in the table below. More specifically, the first column refers to the legal and political space. This is the domain in which relationships between the state and the immigrant are established. Formally, newcomers enjoy fewer rights compared to the

native population. If this situation continues for a long time, it then violates the right to equality which constitutes the basic characteristic of modern liberal democracies.

Table 7. The typology of Entzinger

Legal-Political Socio-Cultural Socio-Economic Individual

Approach Equal Rights Liberal pluralism or assimilation

Equal Opportunities

Group Approach

Group Rights Multiculturalism Justice/Affirmative action Source: Entzinger (2000, p. 105)

The second column of Table 7, above, refers to cultural space. The question is how increasing cultural diversity in modern societies can be efficiently managed. From an individual perspective, culture is perceived as a private matter. Hence, the public intervention with regards to the promotion of mutual understanding policies between social groups with different cultural backgrounds, is limited. However, some experts argue that the policy of multiculturalism creates favourable conditions for the participation of immigrant communities in the host society. The basic principle of this approach consists in the public recognition of cultural diversity, which in turn is reflected in all sub-systems of public life.

The individual approach, on the other hand, initiates from the classical liberal perspective that takes for granted the downward position of immigrants in the hierarchy of the labour market, and furthermore considers that it is the task of public authorities to implement the principle of equal opportunity in other areas, as well as in housing and education. Conversely, the purpose of the collective approach is not simply limited to ensuring equality and accessibility, but it is extended to the evaluation of specific outcomes for all immigrant communities. Following this line of thought, all immigrant groups and/or ethnic minorities should enjoy equal access to public services and goods. Such a form of equality can be achieved through affirmative action policies, which aim to remove social barriers and combat discrimination (Entzinger, 2000, pp. 101-106).

From a micro-level perspective, Entzinger and Biezeveld (2003) argue that the key indicators for the measurement of immigrants’ integration vary according to the opportunity structure of the host society, as well as the position occupied by the immigrants in the host society. Using this approach, the indicators for the measurement of the integration of immigrants are structured as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Integration indicators

Source: Entzinger and Biezeveld (2003, pp. 32-37); E.C. (2005, pp. 1-2)

From the examination of the above typologies it was found that the common approaches that guide research on integration are concentrated in the dialectical interaction and in the interplay between top-down and bottom-up approaches. In claiming this, one acknowledges at the same time the key role of national opportunity structured (macro-level) to the outcome (positive or negative) of the social integration process.

The critical evaluation of these typologies reveals that Heckman’s approach displays a higher degree of analytical pervasiveness of his theoretical model. Furthermore, the structure of his typology and the methodology employed to construct the dimensions of the integration process (structural, cultural, social and identificational), make it functional and adequately measurable. This allows its practical implementation and in a way responds to the research

 Low level of participation in civil society (participation only in ethnic

 Low quality of housing – residency in ethnic neighbourhoods

 Discrimination in employment, education and housing

Socio-cultural Integration

 Attitude toward the basic rules of the host country

 The host society’s perceived public image for the immigrants: the role of mass media

 The results of policies regarding respect to the diversity

On the other hand, Entzinger’s model of integration (macro-level) appears to be less useful. This is because first, the nation-state at the institutional level (structures and institutions) appears to be a static entity. Secondly, it focuses deeply on ideology and public culture, ignoring the practical dimension of the processes involved in the social integration process. Thirdly, the methodological ‘boundaries’ of each dimension are blurred and often overlapping (integration dimensions: legal-political, socio-economic and socio-cultural). In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the main advantage of the model introduced by Entzinger – in contrast to Heckmann’s model – lies with the analytical frame it provides, as well as the distribution of key indicators and integration variables at the micro-level.