community cohesion is as much about how local residents receive immigrants as it is about immigrants themselves
Rachel Pillai looks at the relationship between immigration and community cohesion
The question of whether migration is bad for local communities is one that that has scarcely been out of public debates in recent months, with many questioning whether recent immigration to the UK has had a detrimental effect on community cohesion.
In July 2008, a parliamentary report on community and cohesion found that ‘community cohesion can be adversely affected in areas experiencing rapid inward migration’. According to evidence gathered by the Committee, migration is the biggest issue of concern to one in five Britons who talk of ‘real practical issues’ that cannot be dismissed as racist or xenophobic. This evidence would seem to chime somewhat with Robert Putnam’s recent findings that high levels of diversity in a community can damage bonds of trusts between those living there.
However, recent evidence from the UK highlights a far more complex picture of community cohesion – one influenced not so much by immigration itself but by the particular circumstances of different localities, including levels of deprivation and public misunderstandings about the effects of recent immigration.
First, the national picture does not support the assertion that community tensions are an inevitable consequence of immigration. Even after large-scale immigration from eastern Europe, the latest data shows that 81 per cent of Britons agree that ‘people from different backgrounds get on well together’ in their local area (the current indicator by which community cohesion is measured), and that 83 per cent believe that people in their local area respect ethnic differences.
Given that recent immigration from eastern Europe has been the largest single wave of inward migration that the British Isles has ever experienced, it is remarkable such social change has been accompanied by so little public hostility or violence. Our experience is testament to the adaptability of many British communities and their capacity to cope with rapid change.
There is very little evidence to support a causal link between high levels of immigration and poor community cohesion. The parliamentary report actually mapped the numbers of migrant workers onto the least cohesive local authority districts only to conclude that ‘there is no straightforward relationship between the number of immigrants in a particular community and levels of cohesion within it’. So while some areas, such as the inner-London boroughs of Newham and Brent, have experienced high inward migration but have good levels of cohesion, others have not.
Second, research has shown that the impact of immigration on local areas varies significantly depending on other factors, such as deprivation, crime, employment and previous history of immigration. Of these, a number of studies have shown that deprivation plays a key role in creating poor community cohesion. Other recent research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted the importance of looking at local narratives and practices to understand how new immigrants will be perceived and addressed.
Third, community cohesion is as much about how local residents receive immigrants as it is about the ‘performance’ or ‘behaviour’ of immigrants themselves. Recent evidence has indicated that a backdrop of hostile public and media rhetoric towards immigrants may affect their reception. Add to this the fact that many immigrants receive little information when they arrive in the UK and the exploitation of many by unscrupulous employers and landlords, and community cohesion begins to look far more like the shared responsibility of all.
Indeed, it is evident that all too often widespread public fears and confusion about the effects of immigration pose a greater threat to community cohesion than immigration itself. Recent research published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, for example, found no evidence that newly arrived immigrants are being allocated housing in preference to UK-born people. Yet this remains a popular public perception.
Does all this mean that we can happily dismiss the argument that immigration can damage community relations? Certainly not.
There is a pressing need to address other public concerns and anxieties about immigration because they often fuel local mistrust and tensions. This goes beyond talk of curbing immigration. What is needed are more practical solutions that draw upon the resources of local communities themselves.
For example, we have a consistent body of evidence that demonstrates how sustained contact between people from different backgrounds can effectively address mistrust. With the increasing pace of modern life, changing patterns of work and more mobile populations, the challenge for policymakers is how to create the opportunities that bring people together in order to develop a common sense of belonging.
Rachel Pillai is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies