The Intersection of Urban Studies and Migration Studies (Reflecting on Ways Forward)

Urban studies have provided different explanations of how cities have developed and transformed over time and in different parts of the world. Some guiding questions in urban literature are: Why and how do cities grow? Why is urban growth uneven? How are cities governed? How socially diverse are cities? How to govern diversity? These questions can intersect with migration questions, especially concerning integration at the destination of migrants, mainly in Europe and in North America and to some extent in Australia (global North) during the 20th century and, more recently, also in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Several tensions exist in urban studies that relate to migration studies: integration of migrants, segregation versus desegregation of immigrants in cities; economic formality versus informality; social inequalities and poverty versus policies of welfare and social services; political inequality versus citizenship. Here we look at two perspectives: (1) the ecological functionalist and (2) critical theory and the material features of the political economy of cities. The commentary briefly points out the relevance and limitations of the first perspective and then focuses on the second. This does not mean that other paradigms such as post-structuralist and post-modern approaches, like post-colonialism, political ecology and others are less relevant.

The Chicago School of Sociology developed the human ecology approach to integrating Europe's mass migration into U.S. cities in the early 20th century. This approach long dominated urban research along with community studies. According to Robert Park, migrants went through different stages leading to final assimilation: contact—conflict—accommodation—assimilation. Assimilation of immigrants was considered a long-term solution for dealing with urban conflicts. The idea was that the second and third generations of migrants would mix with the original population in schools and in job markets first, and in neighbourhoods later, mainly in the suburbs of large cities (Park et al. 1974 [1925]). Empirical research of waves of immigration from Europe certified the theory based on ethnic distinctions rather than class distinctions. Seeking to assimilate in U.S. cities, ethnic communities built local associations and institutions (civic and religious) to preserve their identity and to support their members. Sometimes they also aimed to influence the politics in their country of origin (Thomas and Znaniecki 1927), an enduring issue today. This picture changed with the mass migration of African Americans to northern and midwestern cities known as The Great Migration (1910–1970). Racial prejudice and limited opportunities for social mobility created a large underprivileged minority (Roberts 1995, 22). Ethnic and class segregation in cities like Chicago became a permanent source of conflict. The Chicago case has parallels elsewhere in the world.

From the late 1960s, urban scholars in the political-economy tradition (neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian) adopted a macro-sociological research approach. These urban critical theorists gave ‘more emphasis to problems such as the social structural class interests which are affected by planning and state intervention, the accumulation and circulation of capital in the regional system, the ownership of land and other economic determinants of the urbanization process’ (Harloe et al. 1998). A major contribution to urban critical theory was the shift away from the traditional Marxist focus on working-class organised conflict in production in industrial cities. The new emphasis was on the state's contradictions in the provision of collective consumption and on the configurations of urban social movements (Castells 1983). In the analyses of power relations, the problem of ‘Whose city?’ (the question posed by Ray Pahl's 1970 book of that title) became central. David Harvey's critical analysis of liberal formulations of urban systems provided the explanation of uneven city expansion that reinforced working-class exploitation and its consequences for the living conditions of workers, specifically their diminished housing choices and access to services in either peripheries of large cities or in physically and economically decaying inner cities. His conclusion was that the capitalist economy was incompatible with a just city (Harvey 1993 [1973]).

Marxist urban analysis took from Lefebvre et al. (2009 [1968]) the term ‘The right to the city’. Different from individual rights, this idea provided the impetus for urban residents to engage in practices of participation and appropriation of urban space, engendering a sense of belonging. Lefebvre's concept is used by scholars to show the contradiction between capitalism and democracy in cities, highlighting the intrinsic political value of the urban as a space for human emancipation. Research within this framework often includes both internal and international migrants. In São Paulo, Brazil, residents organised insurgent movements to address inequalities and claim ownership of self-built housing (Holston 2009). These studies remain relevant today, especially in examining how civil society helps social inclusion of forced migrants. Such civic solidarity fosters new alliances and collective identities through grassroots and refugee movements, elevating solidarity in the local public sphere and putting issues on municipal agendas, as seen in Berlin and beyond (Kreichauf and Mayer 2021; Nicholls and Uitermark 2017).

Scholars of migration studies have used the term accommodation, introduced by Park, because it highlights process rather than outcome and emphasises the role of the environment (Fauser 2016). Similarly, the term incorporation better represents immigrants' capacity to develop a collective voice and to influence decisions concerning cities' allocation of resources in neighbourhoods and about local politics (Garbaye and Mollenkopf 2012). In the late 1990s, issues of identity and diversity gained prominence in urban studies. In Europe, diversity and identity were considered related to social cohesion in cities, especially with increasing migration and hardening of political debates about migrants' integration. The adoption of a policy aiming for social cohesion often overlooked conflictive views regarding implementation. Moreover, mainstream academic debates left behind the language of rights and social justice influenced by official research agendas. Urban political sociology examined how migrants are incorporated into local public spheres and institutions, linking this with studies on local political opportunities and immigrant strategies such as party involvement, citizenship claims, and nationality petitions (Koopmans 2004).

The explanations of these urban processes had the nation-state as the dominant framework for organising political and social life. From the 1990s, however, two interconnected analytical frameworks placed debates on migration and cities at a post-national level. Globalisation and mobility (Sassen 2007), along with state deregulation and restructuring (Brenner 2004), became central to analysing how cities adapted to the neoliberal Anglo-Saxon agenda and adjusted to the global economy. Alternatively, transnationalism in migration studies conceptualised migrants as agents and located the drivers and consequences of migration in the long-term effects of past international uneven development. Today, a key defining feature is the autonomous movement of labour migrants and refugees (Portes 2023). Its unpredictability affects urban environments and political discussions. Unpredictability stems from states' neglect of migrant incorporation (labour market and habitat) and from migrants' roles as agents of change, shaping adaptation through transnational or translocal ties, daily interactions, and urban politics (Faist 2019a, 2019b).

From the 1990s, urban studies focus on the consequence of states' decentralisation of responsibilities to localities to engage in economic restructuring and urban regeneration/revitalisation. Post-Keynesian instruments and policies originating in the US soon spread to other countries, where local leaders were ‘forced’ to become entrepreneurial. Despite common trends, urban governance ranged from the market-oriented U.S. model to Europe's social orientation and Asia's strong regulation with high state subsidies (García and Judd 2012). Two policy instruments for socio-economic prosperity emerged: welcoming high-skilled migrants by private enterprises and by local leaders to enhance their cities’ aspiration to become globalised hubs. Secondly, organising large-scale mega projects involving flashy architecture that aim to boost the city's image (Diaz Urueta and Fainstein 2008). While some cities and central neighbourhoods achieved economic power, this ‘world-cities’ drive produced new marginalities outside and inside such ‘dual’ cities (Moulaert et al. 2003), with socio-economic polarisation, logics of segregation, redefinition of cultures, generalised gentrification, and expulsion of the poor (including unskilled migrants) and of sectors of the middle classes from the centres of cities (Sassen 2013).

Urban studies that focus on city regeneration have mostly ignored the contribution of migrants' agency in ‘city making,’ argue Çağlar and Schiller (2018). Their work connects with critical urban studies focusing on urban citizenship and social movements. Urban expressions of democratic participation of citizens and non-citizens criticising the hegemonic competitive-city drive of earlier years regained strength after the austerity wave in public policy and urban planning after 2008 (Della Porta 2015; Harvey 2012; Nicholls and Uitermark 2017).

Transnational mobility has heightened migrants' presence and visibility in national and local hierarchies, reshaped social differentiations, and generated new urban inequalities. Empirical research shows the role played by upper-middle classes (Andreotti et al. 2013). These groups now occupy more self-segregated privatised spaces or gated communities. Meanwhile, cities all over the global North witness the formation of immigrant enclaves of lower-paid workers both within and outside the global economy, with a continuing emphasis on ethnic solidarity within them (Body-Gendrot et al. 2012). More recent studies show trends towards greater ethnic diversity in global neighbourhoods in US cities, and yet ‘even affluent blacks and Hispanics still live in poorer neighborhoods than poor whites. Progress for these minorities—in terms of the neighborhoods where they live and the kinds of schools their children attend—is minimal’ (Logan 2014, 18). Financialisation and speculative housing markets have contributed to the transformation of low-cost housing areas into prime real estate developments (García and Haddock 2016).

Moreover, the inequalities caused by re-commodification of services (health care, education, social assistance) foster a sense of unfairness and less trust in governance. These processes of social and spatial inequality ‘are ultimately likely to translate into estrangement, increasing fear of “the other”’ (Musterd 2020, 416). On the positive side, some cities such as Amsterdam, Toronto and Vienna have introduced policies for de-segregation by promoting socially mixed neighbourhoods, although this is often counteracted by the exclusionary dynamics of gentrification (Arbaci and Rae 2013). Relevant comparative analysis (mainly in Europe and North America) has shown the consequence of different welfare regime contexts and has demonstrated the relevance of state policies (Musterd 2020; Arbaci 2019; Maloutas and Fujita 2012).

Transnational rights have partly arisen from increased cross-border mobility and stark global socio-economic disparities. Existing social inequalities are not only intra-national but also transnational. Globalisation, communication channels, and social media have evidenced the ‘citizenship gap’ of dramatic differences in citizenship rights and benefits around the world (Faist 2019a). Hence, the use of human rights discourse to claim rights for refugees and other excluded groups. ‘Urban citizenship’ considers migrants as agents of social and political claims for citizenship because it assumes the acceptance and protection of human diversity in both every day and institutional practices (Blokland et al. 2015; Isin 2000). The application of normative inter-cultural policies promotes interpersonal relations between people from different backgrounds by focusing on common bonds. It also helps residents to cooperate and city institutions to govern diversity (Zapata-Barrero 2024). Residents' identification with the city facilitates a sense of belonging without having to give up other identities. Recent studies at the intersection of the two fields highlight how local administrations and civil society develop strategies to improve integration and citizenship practices in cities of migrants and non-migrants. Much urban literature on public spaces also focuses on where persons ‘encounter’ each other despite their different adscriptions (ethnic, class, legal status, religion and sexuality). These studies also intersect well with migration literature on diversities (Vertovec 2015).