CC BY
49
SUPRANATIONAL POLICY OF MIGRANT INTEGRATION IN THE EU
A. Lyalina
Integration of migrants is an intrinsic part of the modern life of almost all European states pursuing an active migration policy. This article sets out to identify socioeconomic and demographic conditions for the formation of a national migrant integration policy in the framework of implementing European directives. The study contributes to a better understanding of the mechanisms of efficient integration policy development. The article presents an overview of the major forms of social integration of migrants. The author analyses the existing sociological theories and concepts, as well as the practice of implementing supranational policies of integrating third country nationals in the European Union and its major aspects and mechanisms. On the basis of statistical data and with the help of correlation analysis, the author identifies the key factors affecting a country's approach to the integration of immigrants. These factors were used in conducting a cluster analysis, which made it possible to identify four groups of countries. The study showed that, despite the large-scale and positive EU policy, due to differences in the socioeconomic and demographic development European states adopt different approaches to the implementation of migration policy in the field of integration. The author stresses that in the countries characterised by a tolerant approach to immigrants, the crime rate is much higher than in the states with a selective or poorly developed policy towards migrant integration.
Key words: migrant integration policy, migrant, multiculturalism, MIPEX
* Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University 14 a. Nevski str., Kaliningrad, 236041, Russia
Submitted on March 26, 2014. doi: 10.5922/2079-8555-2014-2-8 © Lyalina A., 2014
Today, with a stable low level of natural reproduction of the population (0.5 per 1,000 inhabitants) and against development of a third demographic transition in most countries of the EU, migration has become one of the sources of human resources (taking into account that labour migration is the main type of migration)
Baltic region. 2014. № 2 (20). P. 100—112.
and a powerful engine of the economy. At the same time, the inflow of non-ethnic migrants sometimes radically different in their cultural and material values and traditions from the indigenous people gives rise to talking about migration issues in the context of national security, even in countries tolerant towards migrants such as the UK and Sweden [1; 4]. Therefore awareness of the importance of developing new approaches and tools for the integration of migrants in order to take maximum advantage of the migration potential and ensure security at both the national and the European supranational level is quite relevant. To do this, you first need to learn the basic regulations and approaches related to the existing supranational migration system which regulates the integration of migrants in the European space, determine EU member states implementing the most active integration of migrants and identify their social and economic profile.
In the world's theory and practice there is a lot of research on the models and mechanisms for the integration of migrants. The concept of 'integration of migrants' itself, which in western fundamental and applied research is often confused with the concepts of assimilation and adaptation, according to the Russian sociologist A. Prokhorova, involves two essential components, the legal integration and socialisation. The key point in the integration of long-term legal migrants is granting third country nationals the same rights as the indigenous people. By reviewing the domestic migration policy experiences, V. Mukomel defines this kind of integration as the 'oncoming traffic of cultures of the host society and the cultures of migrants, the mixing of cultural norms and values that originally functioned separately, and were possibly in conflict' [3, p. 5]. The given definition assumes responsibility for the integration process not only by the state, the government, public institutions and the host society but also and primarily migrants themselves.
Western research schools single out four forms of the social integration of immigrants, acculturation (Aculturation, or Socialization), placement (Placement, Interaction and Identification) [11; 12]. Acculturation is a process through which an individual acquires knowledge, cultural standards and competencies necessary for a successful integration into the host community. Placement, in turn, implies a higher degree of integration of migrants namely the achievement of a particular position in the society, i. e. the education or economic system, in the professional or civil terms. Placement can also be regarded as getting migrant rights associated with a particular position in the society, and the opportunities to build relationships in the society, achieve and receive any cultural, social or economic benefits. Interaction leads to the relationships in the society and the network interaction between individuals, for example, the friendly or romantic relationships, and marriage or membership in any social groups. Identification is self-awareness, self-determination of an immigrant's place in the society.
The issues and features of the mixed cultures of migrants and the host society, forms of integration are studied by Western scholars based on four sociological theories of integration of migrants, the assimilation concept (the 'melting pot' concept), the concepts of multiculturalism and structuralism, the theory of segmented assimilation.
The very first model of integration was the 'melting pot' concept, one of the authors of which was Milton Gordon (1964). It was used in establishing a nation state in the United States and France until the 1980's. It is based on the notion of a homogeneous culture and unified nation-state identity (late XIX — early XX century.) [15]. This model involves the refusal of migrants from their own identity and culture in favour of the identity of the host society. The countries, which choose the immigrant integration path, mostly aim at neutralising the society's social and cultural diversity, creating a single and ethnically indifferent nation thus facilitating management of the society. The responsibility for implementation of the assimilation model is the sole responsibility of immigrants.
Then an opposite principle of a migrant integration model, multicultu-ralism appeared. As an official government policy, it was implemented in the countries receiving migrants in Europe (the Netherlands, UK, France after the 1980's, Germany, Sweden). The founders of this concept were Nathan Glaser, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1970) and Oscar Handlin (1973) [14; 16]. In contrast to the first theory, this approach assumes that the host society will become the main lever in the implementation of a multicultural society. The concept of multiculturalism appeared in the second half of XX century is based on the creation of a society, in which different cultures will coexist equally and successfully. The key feature of this approach is the integration of migrants on the basis of the establishment of a civic identity, i. e. granting equal rights to individuals and not ethnic groups.
Today many experts recognize the significant disadvantages of the two theoretical concepts. Implementation of the assimilation policy has shown that the main principle of this model, i.e. the full 'solution' of immigrants' identity in the host society, is untenable. The impact of culture of ethnic minorities on the dominant culture in the United States, Muslim communities in France cannot be denied. As regards the multicultural model, the regulation on equality of cultures, which stimulates the separation of non-ethnic groups and contrasting between their cultures and values and stereotypes of the host society leading to the inter-ethnic confrontation, is exposed to public criticism today. On this basis, due to the frequent cases of mass riots and bashings among the non-ethnic population, heads of many European countries expressed a sharp criticism of the multiculturalism policies, and some announced the complete failure of the model [2; 5].
The authors of the concept of structuralism Peter Blau, Otis Duncan (1967) [7], Alejandro Portes and Joseph Boroz (1989) adhere to different theoretical views on the issues of migrant integration [22]. Proponents of this approach focus not on the model of survival and adaptation of the population speaking another language but how the social and economic structure of the host society influences the ability of migrants to integrate and enhance their economic potential. The main provision of this approach lies in the fact that the success of the integration of migrants is largely dependent on what segment of the society absorbs new immigrants. Proponents of this approach focuses not on the model of survival and adaptation speaking population, and how the socio-economic structure of the host society affect the ability of migrants to integrate and enhance their economic potential.
--- e»
The latest contemporary theory advocates the segmented assimilation concept (Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou, 1994) [21] which seems to combine the previous attempts to model the ways of integration of immigrants and study the determinants of the process itself. The authors identify three most obvious and popular integration schemes:
— growing assimilation and parallel integration into the middle class;
— integration into irretrievable poverty and assimilation into the poorest layers of the host society;
— rapid economic integration with the deliberate isolation or conservation of values and identity of the population speaking another language leading to complex and tense relations in the society.
However, choosing a method of integration, according to the authors of the concept, is determined based on the historical background of each group of migrants, a special profile of such a group that characterises the resources and social vulnerability of immigrants.
Integration of migrants in the host community is part of the ongoing EU migration policy. Along with the development of national integration policies, the European Union since the early 2000's has taken significant efforts to build a supranational policy. For example, in 2004 the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council within the framework of integration for 2005— 2010 adopted the mandatory basic principles of the integration policy. Then, in 2011 a new European program for the integration of third-country nationals was developed and adopted (hereinafter the Programme) [6]. It focuses on the formation of the 'bottom-up' integration policy from the local levels thus ensuring a more intensive involvement of immigrants in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the society. In particular, it seems to be quite important to enhance the role of the representatives of non-ethnic minorities in the elaboration of the integration policy itself. New activities include the creation of a prosperous environment for the adaptation and integration of immigrants in the most vulnerable urban areas, in which the bulk of the immigrants settle, special focus on the representatives of the second and third generations of citizens from third countries. To meet the basic European principles the authors of the Programme developed a package of tools designed to pursue a successful integration policy for immigrants. Of these tools a national system adapted to the specific conditions, goals and objectives can be created. These are the so-called European 'integration modules' [10] built on the experience of countries in the implementation of integration policies. Instrumentation of these modules is divided into three focus areas:
— training courses and language courses;
— raising interest and involving the host society in the integration of migrants;
— active participation of migrants in all areas of public life.
Developers of the supranational European migrant integration admit that
the most important condition in the implementation of an effective integration policy is the mutual multi-level cooperation between all stakeholders starting from employers and trade unions, the supranational European institutions and the governments of the migrants' donor countries.
The main directions of international migrant integration policy in the EU include as follows.
1. Activities aimed at migrant training and supporting before departure, the preparatory training programmes (development of language skills), improved methods of identifying the qualifications and skills of migrants.
2. Activities aimed at establishing the relationship between the host society and the country of origin.
3. Activities aimed at integrating women and the most vulnerable groups of migrants.
4. Activities aimed at increasing the participation of migrants in the political and social life, in the labour market by promoting the acquisition of language skills and improvement of the host state's educational system in regard to increasing the effectiveness of the assimilation of educational programmes by the children of immigrants. The activities aimed at removing barriers to the participation of migrants in the political life of the society especially in the development of integration policies.
5. Activities aimed at building and strengthening the institutional and inter-agency relationships with stakeholders as well as encouraging involvement of the local and regional actors in determining a migrant integration policy in the EU programmes.
6. Activities aimed at using more efficiently EU financial instruments.
7. Activities aimed at addressing the issues of individual areas experiencing a heavy migration growth load (especially in urban areas).
8. Activities aimed at creating a non-discriminatory environment in the society and introducing the principle of equality.
9. Activities aimed at sharing best practices in the integration of migrants, migrant employment, education and social policy between the EU member states.
10. Activities aimed at improving monitoring tools and enhancing control of the implementation of integration policies in the EU member states [8; 9].
A review of the third-country national integration trends, in accordance with which a common European policy is being implemented today, shows two characteristic features:
1) the wide scope of the European Union activities to integrate non-ethnic population, from tackling the problems of disadvantaged highly urbanized areas to bring to involving in integration the countries of origin of the migrants;
2) the positive nature of integration policies, by any way giving immigrants the same rights (granting full access to public and political institutions) as the indigenous population and mitigating any inter-ethnic tensions in the society.
Such a take on immigrants and their role in the society suggests that the integration of non-ethnic population as part of the entire EU migration policy is focused primarily on solving demographic problems.
The activities of the national coordination centre network for integration, the annual conduct of the Ministerial Conference on Integration and the Euro-
pean Forum for the exchange of best practices between Member States, development and support of the European website (http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/), issuing a handbook on integration, all this creates a platform for improving the European policy of adaptation of third-country nationals and the introduction of the main points of the policy into national laws. But all these efforts would not have had such a wide resonance, if the targeted financial support for the integration of immigrants was not carried out by the EU institutions. The common EU approach to migration is based on four funds, the amount of which totals 4 billion euros for the period 2007—2013, the European Fund for the Integration of Migrants, the European Refugee Fund, the Fund for Return of Migrants and the External Borders Fund. Through the use of these financial instruments the European Union is not only committed to strengthening the common EU migration policy but also supports those countries that for economic reasons (the budget deficit, for example) cannot bring the national immigration legislation in accordance with the European one or find a way to implement unified migration management standards. For example, in 2007—2010 almost 70 % of the European Fund for the Integration of Migrants was sent to five beneficiaries — Spain, Italy, Germany, UK and France — where, according to the calculations of the European Commission, during the previous three years, the highest number of third country nationals has lived legally. Another purpose of the funds is to promote interaction between EU countries in terms of exchange of information and best practices. Particular attention is paid to the problems of integration of young people, which are very relevant for France, Italy and Spain.
The European Fund for the Integration of Migrants (2007—2013, 825 million euros) has focused on financing the projects designed to improve national migrant adaptation programmes. Those included initiatives to improve the management of an ethnically diverse population in the suburbs, intercultural learning and dialogue (e.g. online discussion forums, conferences etc.), support to immigrants in the integration into the social and economic systems (e. g. intercultural mediation in accessing health services) and more [18].
An important outcome of the Programme was a set of indicators that can be used to monitor the immigrant policy implementation, assess the degree of integration of issues in the common national policy and achieve the key objective, i. e. understanding the results and prospects of integration of migrants [23]. In this case, for the calculation of indicators not only the data from national statistical agencies and the European statistical office 'Eurostat' but also the results of surveys and dedicated programmes (European Labour Force Survey and others) are used. It should be noted that earlier (in 2004) in cooperation with the British Council in Brussels, the British Foreign Policy Centre and the European non-profit organisation Migration Policy Group the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) was developed [20]. According to many experts, it is this consolidated indicator which most accurately reflects in a comparable format the extent to which national migration legislation complies with EU directives and conventions of the Council of Europe concerning the legal status of third-country nationals.
According to the MIPEX index classification, 12 out of 27 European countries, for which the index values are calculated, adhere to a policy of partial integration of migrants, which is limited only by the elaboration and implementation of measures to facilitate long stay in the host country, promotion of family reunification migrants and sometimes (not typical in all countries) development of a non-discriminatory approach to migrants in society (table 1).
Table 1
The ranking of the EU member states (except Croatia) by the MIPEX index 2007, 2010
Rating 2010 (2007) State MIPEX index
2007 2010
1 Sweden (2)* 84.7 83.1
2 Portugal (1) 76.4 78.8
2 Finland (2) 69.5 69.2
2 Netherlands (2) 70.8 67.7
2 Belgium (2) 64.4 67.3
2 Spain (1) 61.7 62.5
2 Italy (1) 65.3 60.4
2 (3) Luxembourg (4) 51.9 60.2
3 Germany (2) 58.9 57.4
3 (2) United Kingdom (2) 65.8 56.6
3 Denmark (2) 50.9 52.7
3 The EU 53.7 51.3
3 France (2) 54.0 50.6
3 Ireland (1) 52.3 48.6
3 (4) Greece (1) 40.1 49.0
3 Slovenia (1) 52.5 48.5
3 Estonia (3) 43.3 46.0
3 Czech Republic (3) 42.1 45.8
3 Romania (3) — 45.2
3 Hungary (3) 47.2 44.9
3 Poland (3) 43.3 41.8
3 (4) Austria (2) 39.2 41.0
4 Bulgaria (3) — 40.5
4 (3) Lithuania (3) 42.7 39.8
4 Malta (3) 40.0 36.9
4 Slovakia (3) 38.4 36.3
4 Cyprus (3) 36.2 35.2
4 Latvia (3) 30.4 30.7
* In brackets is the number of the cluster to which the country is attributed:
— cluster 1 — with an individually segmented approach to migrant integration;
— cluster 2 — with an intensive migrant integration policy;
— cluster 3 — with a low level of migrant integration;
— cluster 4 — adjacent to cluster 2.
Source: [17], and the author's calculations.
Sweden reached the highest level of development of the institute of migrant integration (80 points) in their legislation; Portugal, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg have a high level (60—79 points); Bulgaria and Slovakia, Lithuania and Latvia, Malta and Cyprus have show a low level and the lowest level (21—40 points). It is worth noting that after 3 years from the date of the first survey, some states have changed the vector of their policy thus leading to a change in the overall value of the index MIPEX 2010. For example, the UK has tightened rules for obtaining citizenship and long stay in the country. On the other hand, Luxembourg, Greece and Austria stepped up their efforts to integrate non-ethnic minorities by simplifying procedures for obtaining citizenship (Luxembourg, Greece), granting migrants more rights in the political life of the society, (Greece) and their mobility in the labour market (Austria).
Our correlation analysis of factors in the development of the integration component of the migration policy of European countries revealed a close direct relationship between the MIPEX index and crime rate (table 2) as well as welfare indicators of the host society. As the average wages and per capita GDP increase and inflation decreases, and the level of development of the national integration policy improves. Despite the fact that the overall indicators of the mechanical and natural population growth did not reveal any significant factor effect on the development of the institute of integration of migrants, a decrease in the proportion of people of working age invariably raises the state's attention to the adaptation of migrants. At the same time, there is some (weak) dependence on the structure of the economy, the higher the share of the social welfare sector and the lower the share of the service sector (trade, restaurant and hotel sector and transport) and agriculture, the higher the score of the migrant integration policy in the country.
Table 2
The value of the correlation coefficient with the conditions for the integration policy development
The correlation coefficient
Factor with the MIPEX index
value interpretation
Crime rate, %o 0.721 High
Average income for a single person without children, EUR 0.658 Average
Share of the working-age population (15—64 years old), % -0.617 Average
Consumer price index (in relation to 2005), % -0.497 Weak
GDP per capita at current prices, EUR 0.496 Weak
Gross value added in the wholesale and retail trade;
hotels and restaurants; transport (at basic prices), %
of GDP -0.479 Weak
<p
End of table 2
The correlation coefficient
Factor with the MIPEX index
value interpretation
Gross value added of agriculture (in basic prices), % of GDP -0.437 Weak
Gross value added of public administration and
mandatory social security; household activities (in
basic prices), % of GDP 0.392 Weak
Migration increase/decrease in the population per
1,000 inhabitants, persons 0.356 Weak
Gross value added of the financial intermediation
and real estate transactions (in basic prices), % of
GDP 0.341 Weak
Gross value added of construction (in basic prices),
% of GDP -0.312 Weak
Natural increase/decrease in the population per 1,000
inhabitants, persons 0.246 Weak
Population, persons 0.216 Weak
Rate of unemployment,% -0.214 Weak
Industrial production index (relative to the corres-
ponding period of the previous year) -0.133 Too weak
Share of vacancies (100 jobs — occupied and
vacant), % 0.091 Too weak
Gross value added of the industry except for cons-
truction (in basic prices), % of GDP -0.054 Too weak
Share of third-country nationals in the total popu-
lation, % 0.034 Too weak
Gross value added of the manufacturing sector (in
basic prices), % of GDP -0.002 Too weak
Source: [13], and the author's calculations.
For profiling countries in terms of implementation of the migrant integration policy in the European Union countries, the author performed a cluster analysis by the most significant conditions selected:
1) Economic — GDP per capita at current prices in euro; consumer price index (relative to 2005) as a percentage;
2) Social — the crime rate in per cent; the average income of a single person without children in euro;
3) Demographic — the proportion of working-age population as a percentage; migration increase / decrease in the population per 1,000 persons (the number of people).
The study revealed three profiles (and one related one) of the European countries which integrate migrants to varying degrees (see fig.).
CLUSTER 4
uxembourg
CLUSTER 3
CLUSTER 2
Austria
Ó
O Sweden
CLUSTER 1
CO
O Portugal
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
MIPEX index
Fig. The results of the cluster analysis by MIPEX, the level of migration growth and the share of working-age population, crime rates, and the average income of a single person without children, the consumer price index and the GDP per capita
The countries listed in the first cluster can be described as the states with an individual segmented approach to the integration of migrants; they are at the bottom of the figure. The social, economic and demographic conditions in the countries of that group are most similar to the European average. For a variety of reasons, the government policy on empowerment of immigrants in those countries varies from the average EU indicators to extremely positive ones, for example, in Portugal third-country nationals have access to the labour market almost on an equal basis with the indigenous population, which keeps the arrived migrant workers in the field thereby offsetting reduction in the population. This attitude towards immigrants is supported by the positive trends — family reunification, reduced discrimination in the society and increased citizenship accessibility. On the contrary, Slovenia, Greece and Ireland show the average in Europe (table 3).
Countries listed in the second cluster are concentrated in figure in about the central part of the chart. Those are the states, which pursue intense migrant integration policies and have developed economies, and can be characterised by high and very high (Belgium) migration gains; the average level of natural reproduction with stable dynamics of its aging and a decrease in working-age people; a sufficiently low level of unemployment; a very high level of wages, not less than 33 million euros per year. But in the countries of the group (as a result of the implementation of an active multicultural society model) there is a high crime rate, 1.6 times higher than the European average. In Sweden as the most 'humane' country in relation to the non-ethnic population a crime is committed by almost every seventh inhabitant of the country (the highest rate in the EU), every tenth in Belgium. Therefore, for the second-cluster countries it is extremely important to limit such an
open position of the state in relation to arriving foreigners. It should be noted that Austria, which has no a high index of integration of migrants, was included in the group by the common relevant characteristics but by the selected socio-economic development indicators it refers to the second cluster.
Table 3
The mean values of the clusters
Cluster MIPEX index Migration inflow/outflow per 1000 people Percentage of the working age population, % Average income per person having no children euros Crime rate, % Consumer price index (the index of 2005 is the reference poit of 100 %), % GDP per capita euros
1 — six countries: Spain, Ita-
ly, Slovenia, Greece, Portu-
gal, Ireland 58 - 1.1 67.32 28760.75 3.8 111.84 22767
2 — nine countries: Swe-
den, Belgium, France, Net-
herlands, Germany, Fin-
land, Denmark, Austria, UK 61 3.9 66.07 49786.10 7.7 110.25 33722
3 — eleven countries:
Slovakia, Romania, Poland,
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
Hungary, Czech Republic,
Cyprus, Bulgaria, Malta 40 - 2.6 69.34 10176.35 2.6 123.71 11018
4 — one country: Luxem-
bourg 60 15.1 68.30 54993.39 6.1 113.10 77400
The EU average 52 1.5 66.90 38050.68 4.8 111.91 24500
Source: [13; 17], and the author's calculations.
The least development of the institute of integration of migrants is typical of countries of the third cluster, with a low level of integration of migrants. Those states are not under the migratory load; there is a decline in population there (both natural and mechanical); the unemployment rate is much higher than the European average (except for Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Romania); the average income of a single person without children is almost 4 times lower than in the EU. At the same time, the crime rate is still at a low level from 10 to 45 crimes per 1,000 inhabitants (according to 2010). The leaders of those countries today do not consider integration of migrants as a priority of the national migration policy. However, in the present social and economic conditions an adequate targeted integration policy will improve the attractiveness of the countries, especially for returning emigrants, and eliminate a migration outflow, and for Cyprus it will allow to increase the effectiveness of immigration.
Luxembourg attributed to the fourth cluster is the closest one by the socio-economic and demographic conditions to the states of the second group. But the fact that the people of Luxembourg are characterised by the largest share of third-country nationals in the structure and the highest level of GDP per inhabitant of the country in the EU gives reason to attribute the state to a separate group. In addition, today the national migrant legislation is being constantly improved in order to take maximum advantage of the significant immigration especially in the area of enhancing the mobility of foreigners in the labour market because foreign employees in Luxembourg (along with the UK and Ireland) are more skilled than the native population [19].
A review of the experience of the supranational migrant integration policy in the European Union and its actual implementation by the EU countries have shown that despite the great efforts on the part of the European Union in terms of the integration of migrants in its territory, not all states seek to empower the citizens of third countries on an equal footing with the native population, and not all the developed tools are used during the integration policy. The basic principle for the majority of the European states is still to ensure national security. In addition, positive integration policies of some European countries (as shown in the values of the migrant integration index in 2010) mainly in Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Denmark and others have been already revised by the heads of those states due to the increase in the crime rate among the non-ethnic population.
However today one should not delve into the failure of integration policies in general but the need to upgrade the integration models and tools, with the help of which it is possible to adjust the adaptation of arriving migrants in the economic, political and social structures of the host society.
In our view, those may be solutions to prevent the formation of non-ethnic enclaves leading to an increase in ethnic tension especially in urban areas; the revitalisation of the public and trade union organisations, the support to adaptive sentiment among migrants (by funding their initiatives); on the promotion of cooperation between the various parties involved in the integration of immigrants; and further study of the conditions designed to develop the migration policy relating to third-country nationals of a state.
References
1. Besporjadki v Velikobritanii [Riots in the UK], 2013, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, available at: http://www.rg.ru/sujet/4464/ (accessed: 19.12.2013).
2. Merkel' zajavila o provale mul'tikul'turalizma [Merkel said the failure of mul-ticulturalism], 2013, BBC, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/ 2010/10/101016_merkel_multiculturalism_failed.shtml (accessed: 06.01.2014).
3. Mukomel, V.I. 2013, Politika integracii migrantov v Rossii: vyzovy, potencial, riski [Policy integration of migrants in Russia: challenges, potential risks], Moscow.
4. Pobedil Stokgol'mskij sindrom [Won the Stockholm syndrome], 2013, Expert, available at: http://expert. ru/2013/05/28/ pobedil-stokgolmskij-sindrom/ (accessed: 19.12.2013).
5. Sarkozi priznal proval mul'tikul'turalizma [Sarkozy acknowledged the failure of multiculturalism], 2013, Lenta. Ru, available at: http://lenta.ru/news/2011/02/11/fail/ (accessed: 06.01.2014).
6. Latvia in the European Union, 2013, European Commission, available at: http://www.es.gov.lv/latvia-in-the-european-union (accessed: 15.01.2014).
7. Blau, I., Duncan, O.D. 2007, The American Occupational Structure, N. Y.
8. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions — A Common Agenda for Integration — Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union, 2005, COM, no. 0389 final, available at: URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 52005DC0389&from=EN (accessed: 17.01.2014).
9. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals, 2011, COM, no. 0455 final, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri =CELEX:52011DC0455&from=en (accessed: 17.01.2014).
10. Draft European Modules on Migrant Integration, 2011, Jule, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_25494_793453556.pdf (accessed: 10.01.2014).
11. Esser, H. 2000, Soziologie, Frankfurt; N. Y.
12. Esser, H. 2004, Welche Alternativen zur 'Assimilation' gibt es eigentlich? IMISBeiträge, no. 23, p. 41—60.
13. European Statistics Funds "Eurostat", 2013, available at: http://epp.eurostat. ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ (accessed: 02.03.2014).
14. Glazer, N., Moynihan, D. I. 1970, Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City, Cambridge, MA.
15. Gordon, M. 1964, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins, N. Y.
16. Handlin, O. 1973, The Uprooted, 2nd ed., Boston, MA.
17. Index Integration and Migration, 2013, Mipex, available at: http://www. mipex.eu/sites/ default/files/downloads/mipex_iii_de.pdf (accessed: 01.02.2014).
18. Integration Fund — National actions, 2013, Europa. eu, available at: http:// ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/iundings/migration-asylum-borders/integration -fund/national-actions/index_en.htm (accessd: 16.01.2014).
19. Luxembourg: the occupational promotion of migrant workers, 2013, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living..., available at: http://www. eurfoound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0807038s/lu0807039q.htm (accessed: 21.01.2014).
20. Migrant Integration Policy Index, 2013, Mipex, available at: http://www. mipex.eu/about (accessed: 16.01.2014).
21. Portes, A., Zhou, M. 1994, Should Immigrants Assimilate? Public Interest, no. 116 (Summer), p. 1—17.
22. Portes, A., Borocz, J. 1989, Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation, International Migration Review, no. 23, p. 606—630.
23. Using EU Indicators of Immigrant Integration, 2013, European Commission, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_37216_243039941.pdf (accessed: 18.12.2013).
About the author
Anna Lyalina, PhD student, Centre for the Socioeconomic Regional Development Modelling, Science Park, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Russia.
E-mail: anuta-mazova@mail.ru
