Debates de la cooperación latinoamericana. Silvana Insignares Cera
Читать онлайн книгу.
formation on the local level or as a political unit which poses a high degree of autonomy. Nevertheless interconnections exist between the various definitions.
CONTEXT II: MIGRATION AND REFUGEES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND GERMANY
Migration has always been a global phenomenon. Still, the UNHCR has highlighted that the number of migrants has never been so high than in 2016: It is estimated that more than 60 Million people can be considered as “on the move” (ISSC 2016), thus being migrants. The gross of these migrants are internal migrants. Internal migration means that people move within the boundaries of their country. Countries with the highest share of internal migrants are Colombia, Syria, and Sudan where due to internal conflicts and wars people are forced to leave their home and settle in other places within the countries’ territory (Sánchez 2012). Current international migration flows can be seen for example from Central America to the US, in South East Asia, but also from the Eastern Side of the Mediterranean (especially Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan) to Europe (Sassen 2016). Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that most of the migration flows from Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan take place to neighboring countries (for example to Jordan or Turkey) and only a smaller share of these migration flows actually affects the European Union. While there is considerable agreement on the complexity of causes which actually drive refugee migration to the European Union, the effects of these recent migration flows on the European Union require further analyses. Despite the only relatively small share of migration flows coming to the European Union, migration has become an important issue on European agendas and is perceived also as a challenge for the European integration project.
Different political opinions on how to handle the increasing amount of refugees coming to the European Union exist and range from building strict physical and legal barriers to a more progressive management of refugees. The main focus from a science perspective on refugees in Germany has been on the interplay between national and supra-national levels, i.e. the member states and the institutions of the European Union. Researchers have analyzed how recent migration flows change the face of European integration and what impact the current situation may have on the European Union. In order to amplify this multi-level-governance perspective, it is argued that the local level plays an important role. Therefore this article focuses on the impact of the refugees on the local level. The city of Leipzig, Germany is used as a case study.
In Germany, the number of refugees (defined as asylum seekers) in 2015 has been 1.091.894 and between January and September 2016 this number was 272,185. The reasons for this decrease lie in new international agreements (for example the EU-Turkey agreement). German law on how to distribute asylum seekers foresees different steps: Asylum seekers coming to Germany first go to a so called “Erstaufnahme-Einrichtung”. In this institution, the refugees will hand in there asylum seeker application. The idea is that in this “Erstaufnahme-Einrichtung” asylum seekers reside only for a very limited amount of time. After they handed in their asylum seekers application and their application is analyzed, refugees have the possibility to move to large scale asylum seekers accommodation, rent an own flat or live in other forms of residences. The municipality is responsible to organize refugees’ residences and receives subsidies for every asylum seeker coming to the municipality‘s territory. The distribution of the asylum seekers is done by the so called Königssteiner Schlüssel, a distribution mechanism which distributes refugees to the different federal states in Germany. Federal states with higher population numbers and higher economic development receive more refugees than smaller, less economically successful federal states. The federal states also have mechanisms on how to distribute refugees within their territory. For example, the federal state of Saxony distributes refugees proportionally to the municipalities’ inhabitants; therefore larger municipalities receive more refugees than smaller municipalities.
There are no legal specifications on how municipalities should organize the refugees’ accommodation as long as basic requirements f.e. concerning hygienic standards are fulfilled. Within this article, it is argued that the question of how municipalities deal with refugees can be used as a test whether and how the concept of the European city is still considered as a leitmotiv for urban development or not. This question is exemplarily analyzed in the case of Leipzig, Germany.
CASE STUDY: LEIPZIG
Leipzig, a city with around 550,000 inhabitants is located in the federal state of Saxony in Eastern Germany. The case of Leipzig exemplarily presents a re-growing city: After decades of decline, Leipzig is now one of the fastest growing cities in Germany. The city encountered a long period of population decline after the political turnaround in 1989 from 530.010 inhabitants in 1989 to 437.101 inhabitants in 1998. After the incorporation of some suburbs around 495.000 inhabitants were living in Leipzig in the years from 2000. During this time, planning instruments to maintain the inner-city structures despite a declining population were implemented in the frame of the Stadtumbau-Ost national funding scheme: low-density housing (e.g. town houses), renaturation of brownfields, and renovation of vacant housing. Since the first decade of the 2000s population increased at a fast pace and currently more than 560.000 people live in Leipzig. New neighborhoods for more than 10,000 inhabitants are planned in inner-city or close to inner-city areas, which are mainly directed at middle class households. Despite the population increase of the last years, the situation on the housing market is - especially compared to other German cities - as a result of the shrinking period rather relaxed and the average rent level is still modest. On a city wide level, there exist more flats than households.
The city has faced in the last years a growing numbers of refugees which ultimately decreased: In 2011, 285 persons were registered as new asylum seekers in Leipzig, in 2014 there were 1,243 persons registered, in 2015 4,230 persons. It is estimated that in 2016 around 3,000 asylum seekers will come to Leipzig. This is the result of the rising number of refugees coming to Germany especially in 2015 and the distribution following the Königssteiner Schlüssel and the mechanisms within the federal state of Saxony.
The city of Leipzig has already in 2012 decided that large scale asylum seeker accommodation should be avoided and that refugees should be hosted in smaller units or rent their own flats. This political statement has been also been included in the municipalities’ housing policy concept, which was updated in late 2015. Concerning the situation of refugees, the housing policy concept stated that decentralized housing options for refugees should be accompanied by measures for social integration (language courses, possibilities to access the labor market etc.). The housing policy concept also implied that housing for refugees should be provided rather in central locations than in the periphery, where refugees might feel isolated (especially due to the fact, that refugees normally do not own cars and public transport towards and from peripheral locations is weak).
Leipzig’s idea to prioritize decentralized housing rather than centralized housing is in line with the above mentioned concept of the European City. A social mix in neighborhoods, a focus on central rather than peripheral locations for refugees and the idea that integration can be achieved on an urban level refer to the ideal-typical concept of the European City.
Nevertheless, the latest numbers for Leipzig show a different picture: The majority of refugees in Leipzig live in large scale centralized housing. Of the approximately 5,000 refugees in Leipzig, 2,500 live in large scale refugee homes with more than 60 persons, approx. 600 refugees in small scale refugee homes with less than 60 persons, approx. 300 refugees in hotels, 50 refugees in contemporary housing conditions, 700 refugees in flats rented by the municipality and 1,100 refugees have rented their own flat, Thus it can be stated that decentralized housing is of minor importance, despite the political will to avoid centralized housing for refugees.
Why does this gap between political will and real development exist? A multitude of different, partly overlapping reasons can be identified. In order to systemize these reasons, the different options of decentralized housing are analyzed and it is evaluated why only a small share of refugees lives in decentralized housing.
A. REFUGEES AND THE PRIVATE HOUSING MARKET
Currently, around 1,100 refugees living in Leipzig rented their own flats. According to the legal requirements, refugees